Krugman: there’s an almost compulsive aspect to the WH’s alienation of supporters

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Funny thing about this piece: A nobel prize winner and New York Times columnist casually uses the term "DFH" (For the uninitiated, that stands for "Dirty Fucking Hippies.")

September 21, 2010, 10:07 am
The Anti-Dog Whistler
Paul Krugman


So Obama’s nominee to head OMB told a Senate panel that deregulation didn’t lead to the financial crisis. Urk. I think he may technically be right — it wasn’t so much deregulation as the failure to extend regulation to keep up with financial innovation that did it. Still, talk about stepping on the message. And this gets to a point I’ve been trying to formulate: while the Obama’s political problems are largely due to a lousy economy, it’s also true that the administration seems to go out of its way to alienate its supporters.

What I think of is the contrast between how Obama operates and how Bush operated. Bush and his handlers were masters of dog-whistle politics — of conveying to their base, in ways that went under the radar of mainstream media, the message that he was really one of them. The vaguely Biblical language about evildoers, for example, struck most mainstream commentators as being slightly odd, but never mind; what it conveyed to the religious right, however, was the message that Bush was a dominionist at heart.

Obama, however, seems to go out of his way to convey the message that although he rode to office on a wave of progressive enthusiasm, he and his people don’t respect the people who got him where he is. There are the gratuitous jabs at the “professional left”, the “both sides are wrong” rhetoric even as the right goes all out to destroy him, and stuff like Lew’s testimony. I mean, how hard would it be to have a little message discipline here?

In fact, it often seems to me that there’s an almost compulsive aspect to the administration’s anti-dog whistling. Maybe it comes from hanging out with the political and business establishment, which leads to a desire to seem respectable by dissing the DFHs. But memo to the president: Wall Street will hate you anyway. All you’re doing is undermining the enthusiasm of people you need. Just to be clear: I’m not saying that it would be right or justified for progressives to take their ball and go home. Obama has brought real change — above all, health reform, imperfect as it is (and if it survives). But yelling at the base won’t get them up and going; a little respect might.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/the-anti-dog-whistler/

[regnaD kciN]

1. There's an almost compulsive aspect to certain progressives...

...wanting to destroy the Obama administration practically from the get-go.

I guess it's easier to sit back and complain when you have a Republican administration and Congress. :grr:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. A refreshingly original sentiment

[Uzybone]

5. just like the OP

[Forkboy]

12. Do you still "love Krugman"?

[Uzybone]

14. yep

I agree with the general premise of the post.

[Forkboy]

19. You're a consistent man then!

:thumbsup:

:)

[aquart]

249. YES.

But the president preferred Geithner and Summers.

[creon]

362. I like him

I think that krugman is right most of the time. But, he is a heterodox economist and he will never be in policy making situation. That is unfortunate.

[Uzybone]

6. dupe

[rhett o rick]

314. Notice how the poster dropped the bomb and ran. nm

[joeybee12]

9. Apparently that's the best you got...

and it's BS.

[Raster]

229. Yes, but that's what passes for centrist commentary on DU these days.

No substance, just throw the "leftists", "professional left" and other progressives under the bus. Krugman's point is clear: Team Obama is pandering to the wrong group of people.

[earthside]

13. There's an almost compulsive aspect to certain Democratic ...

...Presidents wanting to discredit their liberal/progressive base practically from the get-go.

I guess it's easier for them to sit back and complain than go out and actually fight for the 'change' they promised.

-- The other side of the equation. --

[bluethruandthru]

186. Well said! +100 n/t

[pleah]

212. +1000

[Just-plain-Kathy]

352. 1000 + 1

:thumbsup:

[Land Shark]

353. Let's do the math: 1000 + 2!

[MissDeeds]

354. And 1000 + 3

[Raster]

231. Thank you!

[L0oniX]

238. +999

[Jackpine Radical]

323. I can'r even guess

how many times I've tried to kill that bug with my thumb.

[Joe Fields]

253. Thank you! +1

[stranger81]

273. Yup -- talk is cheap and easy. Walking the walk, not so much. [n/t]

[Cherchez la Femme]

349. It's hard work!

[rhett o rick]

321. You mean the Rick Warren "get-go"? nm

[lark]

328. snark warning

Or ....

it's easier to get co-opted by the rich Wall St., military industrial crowd, then throw your supporters under the bus when they complain that this isn't the change the bought into? Seems familiar to me.

[tavalon]

37. Actually, the Obama administration seems hellbent on alienating us

While I knew from the get go that I wasn't going to get everything I want (translate-pony), I was very pleased that Obama won. Then his appointments started and the hits just kept coming. I'm one battered Democrat and while I've been guilted into voting, once again, for the lesser of two evils, I am continually astonished at how deaf and blind this administration is with regard to its constituents. I thought I had a very high astonishment meter, given the previous 8 years, but in many ways (luckily not all ways) this administration has been just as astonishing. And no, I don't mean that in a good way.

[AlbertCat]

254. Actually, the Obama administration seems hellbent on alienating us

Well, I for one don't really feel alienated, but I do feel numb, confused, and mostly, invisible. Oh I'll go vote for Dems because, what the hell! what else are you gonna do if you have a rational brain and more than just knee jerk gut reactions? But the Dems couldn't sell water in the desert. Part of the problem is the vast right wing media, but then, what are Dems doing to rectify that?

I'll vote, and I don't think Repugs will do as well as they think they are or we're being told they are gonna do. (God I'm sick of "news of the future!") but I KNOW that i have no voice and no one in power cares about me or what I think... a gay atheist. America doesn't care about me. So I'll vote Dem and then go live my life. But, if things get real bad, there are other places to live, and I'm smart enough to learn Dutch.


Ho hum.

[humbled_opinion]

348. Yeah thats the ticket...

Lets move to shut down the political opposition news outlets Faux and talk radio...LOL... You can't even be serious, imagine how that will go over with the general public. Look we need to win in the arena of Ideas. Obama's problem is that he is not communicating the advantages to the masses of people that need convincing. He can't stay on this big government has the answers message, its not selling, the tea party has made a very significant impact. I think Bill Clinton has it exactly right the idea should be to co-op the tea party message of smaller government, less oppression by corporations and generally fairness to everyone... no more bailouts, lower taxes, more jobs, better education, better health care, bring our troops home... I think no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on that message is specific and rings true.

[tavalon]

391. You say you don't feel alienated

and then go on to describe alienation perfectly. I'm glad you don't feel alienated because it sure sounds like you are from where I'm standing.

[wuvuj]

53. Yea...I was on Obama's website...

...complaining about Summers and Geithner before he was in office...turned out I was probably right. The GAP between what he says and what he does...started early.

He wanted us to hold his feet to the fire...but he forgot to mention those asbestos shoes he wears?

[PVnRT]

57. There's an almost compulsive aspect to certain DUers

...wanting to shut down any critical word about how Obama does anything, accuse them of just being "keyboard warriors," and try to otherwise discredit or attack them without ever actually attempting to engage them in conversation or, you know, listen.

I guess it's easier to kiss their ass when you just want them to write donation checks and do the volunteer work for you.

[sabrina 1]

59. You must have proof of that piece of hyperbole or surely you would not

post it on a public board. Maybe you forgot the sarcasm tag?

The fact is that this administration forgot who elected them, and if they do not remember soon, all the wailing and whining from those who are clearly in denial, won't help in 2012.

Even the Democratic leadership acknowledges the harm done by this WH to their own chances of re-election and have twice met with WH officials to register their own complaints.

I guess Nancy Pelosi among others, 'wants to destroy this administration' also. :eyes:

[laughingliberal]

143. +1000 nt

[sendero]

62. How dare anyone..

.. expect a politician to keep his promises? It's just outrageous.

Almost as outrageous as the beaten-wife, cowering in the corner asswipes who will settle for any bullshit that is passed out.

Enjoy your kibble, prole.

[Radical Activist]

87. The best way to prove what a cool independent thinking progressive you are

is to attack Obama as much as possible. It's better than wearing a pair of chucks and getting a cool piercing.

[tomp]

167. once again with your baseless assertion that....

....people who "attack" (criticze) obama ("as much as possible"=straw man) are not independent thinkers, and by implication that people who support him (unquestioningly) are.

[Enthusiast]

205. You are a

"Radical Activist"? In what way are you radical? Which issues are you radical and activist about?

[closeupready]

239. lol

+1000

[Radical Activist]

334. Many issues.

I'm so radical that I've never expected anyone capable of getting elected President to do what I want without a lot of pressure. Radical enough to see that the current progress is a step toward something more and one way to encourage politicians to take another step forward is to make them feel that they're headed in the right direction when they do something positive. I'm secure enough that I don't need to find the flaw in everything Obama does or says to prove how radical I am.

[Enthusiast]

394. Okay, just wondering...nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

350. Oh, man...

Lemme guess.. he'll be Radical and an Activist because he defends the establishment! :rofl:



edit: I was right! :rofl: :rofl::rofl:

[tomp]

358. if there is ONE thing I could change about DU...

...it would be that posters screen name. it is a living and breathing lie and an insult every time i see it. he/she takes a position, and then self defines it as radical. it is the most illogical thing i've ever seen here.

btw, i've been down this road with him/her before...he/she is hopeless.

[QC]

372. At least the Che avatar is gone.

Be thankful for small mercies!

[Cherchez la Femme]

387. True

I did enough of my own chiding regarding that avatar.
After it was gone & I mentioned it yet again he asked me if I ever would get over it.

I said sure, but I'll never forget it! :D

[Cherchez la Femme]

388. Me too

It's plain what the posters nature is --it is what it is--
but I've learned to, if I run across a post: read it and then just pass it by...

Sad, really.

[defendandprotect]

221. Would be nice to see Obama dumping the corporates ... that would be refreshing ....!!

As though W Bush was solicitous of the Democrats in Congress --

or put liberals/progressives on his "team" -- !!!

Yet -- Obama has taken the corporate-DLC -- and corporate Wall street onto his team --

and turned government affairs over to Republicans like Alan Simpson!!!

Pitiful!

[aquart]

250. Nah. A poll just came out saying Business feels unloved.

And that, naturally, is what matters.

[defendandprotect]

319. Evidently, that shocked the corporate-DLC/Rahm who thought "business should be grateful" to Obama!!

... but that's a trademark of the right wing to never top pushing further to the right!!

they never stop --

Here's Rahm crowing on how much they've done for business ...

Health care reform 'PRESERVED PRIVATIZED' health care!!

Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...


Another DU poster posted this at DU 8/12/10

[Radical Activist]

329. Didn't we attack Bush for surrounding himself with like-minded yes-men?

People who would only echo one viewpoint? Didn't Obama promise to be different? Apparently, he meant it. There's a wide variety of viewpoints among his cabinet and advisers. The high profile cabinet members tend to be more centrist than his less visible policy advisers and agency liaisons.

[stranger81]

276. it's even better calling yourself Radical Activist

when you're in fact a run-of-the-mill centrist.

[Radical Activist]

327. The failure to hate Obama doesn't make one a centrist.

And it's very sad that some people think so.

[stranger81]

330. Agreed. It's staking out centrist positions on every conceivable issue

that makes one a centrist.

[Radical Activist]

336. Like my post yesterday

about anyone who doesn't support climate change legislation being unfit to hold any public office? I write some very left wing posts about issues. The only thing that opens me to frequent accusations of being moderate is that I don't believe every flimsy attack a pundit makes against Obama. It suggests that some posters can only view issues through the lens of how they feel about Obama.

[lark]

331. Sad that some people think that blind fawning is required

for all Dem pols, especially the perfect Obama. What's the difference between blind fawning for Obama and blind fawning for Bush - none really. I thought Dems were supposed to be the thinkers, not the blind followers?

[Radical Activist]

337. Being gullible about believing any claim a pundit or blogger makes

as long as it attacks Obama from the left is blind following. It happens a LOT at DU. People should learn that you have to read things critically and check out sources before you accept every word at face value, even when it comes from a liberal.

For example, many people are gullible about believing anything a big pharma lobbyist says about back room deals regarding the public option, and the distorted spin on what he actually said. I'm more skeptical. I don't like to be manipulated.

[sabrina 1]

325. Another reader of minds except everyone knows

reading of minds is not possible.

So, since we're playing this game again. You supported McCain's policies in the campaign, like Offshore Drilling, Mandated Insurance, a Commission to discuss SS and the Deficit (as if one had anything to do with the other), no Public Option, lots of Republicans as advisers because they're so good at running the country, ending torture, closing Gitmo etc. etc.

But then you voted for Obama, who opposed all those positions, very vocally and eloquently, and a miracle happened, you got those policies anyhow. I guess you were playing some kind of chess, voting AGAINST what you supported basing your roll of the dice on a hunch that politicians are all the same?

I'm just guessing, but if you voted for Obama, how come you agreed with McCain?

[slay]

127. Imagine that - progressives that actually want real change when promised

i want the same thing from Obama that i would want from any president i voted for - do the right thing. progress us FORWARD. where is DADT? oh nevermind. how bout single-payer? anyone? anyone? ok, how bout escalating a war in Afghanistan for no good reason while the USA goes well beyond broke and many people can't even find jobs?

yeah, i'm gonna criticize Obama. i'm not out to destroy him though - i want him to be BETTER. he's way better than a republican, now we just need his administration to stand up for the people of this country, and not just corporations and rich people.

[liberation]

168. I think your post tells us more about your own compulsions to erect strawmen...

... than it does about the compulsions of us pesky "progressives."

[dotymed]

177. The premise of your response

seems to be that Progressives should STFU unless we wat to "destroy the Obama administration."
No matter who is "elected," we all have the right to expect that our voice be heard. It is people that think as you do, IMO, who contribute to the problem.

[molly77]

180. Why would progressives come out against the obama

administration? Could it be because it is packed with retread clintonites? And his policies are not just repub lite but repub?

Where are the good old days (90's) when a person could just have a D behind their name and get by with murder? TARP and the healthcare bill for pharmaceuticals and insurance companies pop into my mind .

[Cherchez la Femme]

382. I especially mark what

Obama (Disclaimer: Obama is better than Bush!) did;
instead of replacing U.S. Attorneys (2 for each State, if memory serves me correctly) as is his right and which every single incoming president has done for...hell, ages...

Obama kept every single U.S. Attorney he could --you know, all those fervent "Loyal Bushies"
"Loyal Bushies" being a self-proclaimed descriptive many used to reassure Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzales, the DOJ & the rest of the cadre of their undying liege during/after Bush/Gonzales/et.al. fired those other damn upstarts who dared to want to prosecute *actual criminals* by applying the honest Rule of Law instead of being paid, official attack dogs for the benefit of the Republican Party and their candidates.

The nerve.


For instance, look at the case of Don Siegelman:
Former Alabama Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor & Convicted Criminal
in whose case both the Bush *and* the Obama Department of Justice had, and still does, ignore/refuse to hand over related documents and has outright refused to cooperate in any (post conviction) investigation.

This is a truly frightening story about politically motivated American (In)Justice and how has it NOT been corrected. In 2009 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "refused his request for a new trial, finding no evidence that the conviction was unjust."
No evidence?! Not unjust??! As much as I despise Wikipedia and hate to promote it, their article on Don Siegelman does give a decent overview of many of the horrifying actions, words, half-truths, outright lies and yes, conspiracies perpetrated by Republican officials & their operatives before and during (and probably after) his trial. The Wikipedia Talk Page for this article (accessed at the top of the Wikipedia page under 'Discussion') is also enlightening, it shows how many try --and too often succeed-- in skewing articles to reflect "both sides"
....as if truth had two different sides! :puke:

One of the U.S. States Attorneys was/is Leura Canary, who is a great friend of Rove and who is married to a top-level Alabaman Republican Party operative. This peach is STILL "doing her job" in Alabama as a part of Obama's DOJ.
I know I feel safer!*

*As long as I'm not in Alabama!
*Nor any of the other states still having Loyal Bushie Attorney Generals still in place. There were 100 of them ya know... (if I'm wrong on that please someone give me a definitive link).


The other U.S. attorney for Alabama (the current one), however, was picked by President Obama. That choice was hailed as"the start to changing leadership in 93 U.S. attorney offices" (Birmingham News)
The "start"?! But she was not appointed to the post until AFTER her predecessor, the Very Loyal Bushie, Alice Martin, finally resigned in June, 2009! ("Martin tendered her resignation from office in June 2009, five months after the inauguration of Democratic President Barack Obama.")

Good old Loyal Bushie Alice had many ethical problems. Along with having to endure mere criticism for her involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman:

--she was criticized and investigated for perjury in Brown v. Ashcroft, which dealt with a FOIA request concerning Martin firing a black assistant attorney. As Scott Horton wrote in his Harpers piece (The Alice Martin Perjury Inquiry), 'the perjury investigation against Alice Martin was "deep-sixed". The DOJ concluded on November 28, 2007, with

"a finding by the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility that Alice Martin “did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment.” "

This perjury case was decided by a certain Judge Mark Fuller, who coincidentally served as judge in the Siegelman case. Surprise, surprise.

--she has also been accused of getting a critic at an Alabaman University fired. Of course she denies this

--as a matching set with the above case, she has has also been involved in the politically controversial investigation of an Alabama college, including her indicting State Legislators
And somebody --Gee, who knows?-- has been leaking information about this prosecution (persecution? /snark) of her to the media! :nopity:

--the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is currently investigating her for misconduct in two cases including the Siegelman and Axion Corp. The Axion Corporation complaint says "Martin and two of her deputies allegedly told defense lawyers that their goal was to put the company owner out of business whether or not he was convicted."

She just may be misunderstood :cry:
(I refudiate she was misunderestimated!)

Scott Horton, in the same Harpers article linked to above, wrote:

I got flooded with personal accounts of dealings and encounters with Alice Martin—they came in from attorneys, businessmen, political figures, and prosecutors who work for her, and even a judge. And not a single person had a positive thing to say about Martin. Many expressed questions about her professional competence—and her handling of the HealthSouth case may be the basis for some lasting judgments on that score. But in others she was characterized as mean-spirited, mercurial, petty, vindictive, and extremely partisan. Indeed, her extreme partisanship was a consistent theme of comment.

This sorry excuse for an attorney, much less a U.S. Attorney, much LESS a human being, is what Obama WANTED in his Justice Department?! Why? for Goddess' sake? Could it be just because he was skeered those mean, mean (but Bipartisan!) Republicans would criticize him for doing what every other president has legally done: make his (sorry I cannot say 'her' when referring to past or present presidents) selections for the positions of U.S. Attorneys directly after his swearing-in?

Mind you, this is something they would advocate THEIR candidate to do whenever they regain the presidency. No doubt!



***Note: Yes, there was indeed a petition signed by 44 former Attorneys General, but I believe former is the keyword here. I would be incredibly surprised if any Loyal Bushies signed it -- they wouldn't be Loyal anymore, would they?

***Another note: From what I can glean from different sources, both Bush's & Obama's DOJ have refused to hand over documents to Siegelman's attorneys; it appears they are going to fairly police themselves though, doing their own internal investigation.

[molly77]

181. If I recall at the get go

Rahm Emmanuel was being installed as chief of staff and Howard Dean was given a kick in the pants. It did not start off well and then went down hill.

[Missy Vixen]

360. Hmmm. You've got something there.

Howard Dean got President Obama elected with his fifty-state strategy. Howard Dean is a progressive. Howard Dean was quickly shown the door after a hugely successful election. The organization involved has been allowed to languish for the past two years.

Rahm Emanuel has done nothing but create division among President Obama and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party since the day the President took office. He has destroyed whatever goodwill existed between the President and progressives, who typically are the ones putting boots on the ground and writing checks during campaigns. I do not think it is an accident we have seen some pointed and broadside attacks on progressives coming out of this White House. After all, we're supposedly small in number, but all ills of the Democratic Party and the White House are laid at our feet.

:eyes:

[NashVegas]

191. In Many Ways

We DO have a Republican POTUS and congress. That's the point.

[Enthusiast]

199. How absurd.

Re-read the article.

[defendandprotect]

220. Obama's turning government over to Republicans and pro-corporates is what

has done harm to his administration!!

When did Bush ever do the same -- ?

Who was on Bush's team?

See any Democrats there -- maybe Michael Moore as a White House aide?

Krugman . . . Howard Dean . . . ?

It's very easy to not be concerned when you ignore all of that!

[BrklynLiberal]

332. +1000

[LaurenG]

226. What.the.hell.ever - don't blame the progressives for any of this

Understand that this administration has made promises to all of us and it ain't happening. He can say we progressives need to shut up but in reality it's him and those like him who need to LISTEN.

If the republicans win (and I doubt they will) it will be the fault of all the people running around with their fingers in their ears blaming progressive for all the failures of this administration.

Progressives are working to get progressive (read democratic) candidates into congressional seats.

[BrklynLiberal]

335. +++++++++1000

:thumbsup:

[Demeter]

270. That is completely false

There was no one to the left of the GOP working to destroy the Obama administration. The destruction started with Rahm Emanuel. And it's been constant. And it's been destruction of the Left: their hopes and dreams, the commitments made, their reputations, etc.

[ProudDad]

301. You might find life a little easier if you would recognize some Truths

NO Progressive wanted "to destroy the Obama administration practically from the get-go"! You can try to let go of that silly meme.

Progressives were hoping that the Harvard-educated lawyer/politician, like the Patrician/Upper Class scion Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would be a "victim of circumstances".

We hoped that he would actually adopt and push for REAL Progressive Legislation in order to delay the inevitable collapse of his handler's corporate capitalist system...as FDR was forced to pass the New Deal, a very weak form of the Progressive platform of his day, in order to "preserve capitalism" during the last Great Depression.

We have instead witnessed a complete caving in to corporate interests, republicans and blue-dog "democrats"; from his appointments (Rahm, Hillary, Geitner, Summers (for Dog's sake! Summers?), the Health Insurance Industry and Big PhRMA getting deals before he's even sworn in, to his inept(?) handling of any progressive legislation, to his inability(?) to punish democrats who block Progressive legislation, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

He's not even a pale imitation of FDR. He's more like Hoover...trying to make "change" by doing the same shit over and over again expecting a different result.

Real Progressives realize that the entire system is corrupt; it's government by the corporations, for the corporations and of the corporations and expecting much change under that system of corporate control is ludicrous...but we hoped for the best anyway, alas.

[rhett o rick]

311. I am not sure what your motive is in this post but it makes no sense.

If progressives came out in droves to door-bell and phone bank to get him elected, why would they immediately turn on him?

[creon]

393. tough times

Well, we are in tough times with no easy way out.

And, the fact that there is a lot of disagreement within the Democracy is a factor.

[underpants]

2. The left is mostly in the pocket- MSM says he is on the left- so he is running to the middle

Sound familiar?

[Uzybone]

4. The DFHs are not Obama's base

the young, minorities, union and women are.

I do agree with Prof Krugman on the general premise, Obama has never done dog whistle politics. I for one am happy he doesn't. If its politically smart or dumb we will find out in 2012.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. It is an ironic term

It was coined to refer to everyone who opposed the Iraq War being dismissible by the RW as DFHs.

That was 30%-50% of the population of the US.

Y'know... the young, minorities, union and women.

[Uzybone]

10. its an insulting term

[ChiciB1]

23. THAT LoGo Is Simply DISGUSTING To Me!! I Saw It Recently & Someone

asked if this was REALLY the new logo and I thought they were joking! APPARENTLY NOT!

Anybody know HOW this got adopted? I haven't been posting here much lately, so I guess I missed something!

I agree with Krugman though, terminology or not! Obama has disappointed me and I worked VERY hard to get him elected!

Starting off to appease the folks across the aisle and continued doing it even AFTER they have DONE NOTHING but attack him and put him down! Makes me wonder more than I can say! Guess he kind of lost me as times has gone by! Others will BLAME ME, but I most certainly don't see it that way, there are more than ENOUGH Democrats who are scratching their heads in wonder too! Many of my fellow Democrats feel cheated too, but this has been said so many times here on so many occasions so I'll just stop talking now!

JMHO!

[Uzybone]

25. swallow your disgust for the logo and vote Dem in Nov.

nt

[liberation]

170. Add that to the long list of things to swallow I guess...

When your are reduced to use swallowing to make a selling point for voting a specific party... it is time to start reconsidering a lot of things.

[flyarm]

198. I have been swallowing for 40 years, How long have you swallowed?

and pssss..no one will tell me what to swallow!

And when you have walked the walk for 30, 40, 50 years..then you can tell us what you are willing to swallow, until then..do not even attempt to tell me or many people like me what to swallow!

My throat belongs to me and me alone!

[ChiciB1]

241. Not Quite As Many Years! But Close! As A Democrat All I Can Say Is

that my LIFE seems it's in TURMOIL, so swallowing could be difficult at best!

[MissDeeds]

366. My gag reflex is precluding swallowing a lot of this BS

[Blue_In_AK]

28. I, too, really hate that logo.

Bland, boring and insipid.

[JTFrog]

30. zOMG!!! elventyshfiftyfive!!!!11111!!!

So you don't think he should appease folks that have DONE NOTHING but attack him and put him down!? I'd have to say I agree with you there. Good thing the President is a better human being than I.

[ChiciB1]

245. D For Forward, R For Backward... STILL Doesn't Make The LOGO Any

better! Looks like something for way back in the 50's or so. Now, don't start attacking me about the 50's, I know at the time their logo's were in vogue, I suppose!

But it just seems someone could have been MORE inventive for appearance sake at least! It's just UGLY to me and a REAL TURN OFF! My car is my car, I didn't expect much more!

Another thought just came to mind... are there copyright issues here?

[freebrew]

285. NOTHING?

Just got him elected, that's all...

[earcandle]

158. Its going to be a windy vote, with gusts blowing every which way...

[flyarm]

201. I find that logo repulsive as well..it reminds me of propaganda ..like the Obama logo looked like

the Pepsi logo..this is no bettter..it is disgusting.

Subliminal propaganda anyone????????

[tomp]

169. ok, what is dfh?

[Raster]

234. Dirty Fucking Hippies

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DFH&defid=3392947

Acronym for Often used with irony by liberal bloggers to describe any person whose political views fall to the left of the American political/media establishment, and therefore are considered too shrill to be taken seriously by members of said establishment. Strangely, DFH does not appear to have a right-wing equivalent.

[flyarm]

196. hmm his administration has attacked Unions and women, and oh by the way, many women are in unions!

and the reference to DFH's is to the Generation in their 50's to 60's..that is a pretty damn big portion of the Democratic Base!

In fact I would tell you that is the most counted on portion of the base that always shows up to vote!

If Obama is hoping for the youth to show up in the record and unprecedented numbers he had in 2008..he damn well better start finding jobs for them! Because they are the least employed right now and taking a very hard hit with this economy!

Oh and pssss..the youth is the least likely to show up for mid term elections!

Been to Democratic meetings lately? I would guess you haven't..the youth is no where in sight! You would have a better chance of findng them at a Beer Pong game!

[ChiciB1]

248. You Betcha... Beer Bong Games Are What's Happening With Them These Days!

I have a grandson who just started college and was HUGE for Obama. His FIRST time able to vote and he got our whole family out and working for him! Even though Obama wasn't even my 1st or 2nd choice, I saw which way the wind was blowing! Now, I think it's was just "blowin' in the wind!" Oh my, have I dated myself! But those of us who saw a certain "activism" back then have a very hard time understanding the "quick silver" movements of today! Nothing seems to stick for very long! And yet, it is WE who have been LOYAL for so very long who are being ATTACKED and put down on a daily basis!

Now, it's almost like "Obama Who?" Like technology that moves faster and faster every day, that's how so many YOUTH think! Been there, done that! Old School... let's move on!

Just what I'm seeing from my binoculars anyway, and I see it first hand with him and his friends!

We shall see, but as the saying goes... "if I were a betting person, etc."

[ProudDad]

307. Or putting up Ron Paul stickers... (n/t)

[Lilith Velkor]

351. DFH is not a generation. It's a state of mind.

Naturally, boomers want to make it all about them. :eyes:

[RobinA]

256. Well, This DFH,

woman, union member was never fooled into thinking Obama was anything other than a moderate Repub. I'm also not in favor of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good enough. However, I am the base and this particular base-person is increasingly feeling that I'm getting less than I bargained for, even given my lowish expectations. I really did think he'd close Quantanamo and other, like-minded concentration camps that we are running. I don't see anyone on the horizon, but the biggest threat to Obama in two years could be a halfway credible 3rd party. One who is close enough to see the left side of things through a cheap pair of binoculars. Should this person emerge, Obama may find himself Gored.

[BrklynLiberal]

333. ....

:thumbsup: :yourock:

[riderinthestorm]

389. Haven't even read through the rest of the posts yet but have to K and R yours! nt

[ProudDad]

305. After the house burns down

It will be a good thing he was able to keep the kitchen stove from burning up...

"Politically smart" or "politically dumb" in the service of a corrupt system that's destroying the Earth as a hospitable environment for large air-breathing mammals doesn't really matter now, does it?

[WillyT]

7. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[chill_wind]

11. Krugman!

K & R.

:woohoo:

[slay]

Saw him in the movie - "Get Him To The Greek" the other day

small bit part playing himself. great flick too.

[chill_wind]

163. :-) "My dad loves your shit."

I haven't seen it. Thanks for the heads up. :hi:

http://www.businessinsider.com/check-out-paul-krugmans-brief-cameo-in-get-him-to-the-greek-2010-6

[sheldon]

299. Yeah, that was cool.

Saw it yesterday.
The movie was pretty much CRAP, seeing Krugman might have been the highlight for me. :D

[slay]

381. Aww I thought it was pretty hilarious

but you have to like Russel Brand which I do.. and.. well.. it could have been that "jeffrey" i smoked.. :smoke: but i really enjoyed it. ;)

[DJ13]

15. I find it sadly ironic that some here easily dismiss Obama's slights to the left

..... while constantly supporting his attempts to appease the right.

[ProSense]

27. You know what's really important

this.

For all the talk about slights and the President, why is Feingold's seat in danger?

Could it be because people are all talk and worried about nonsense?

[EFerrari]

141. No. It's because Feingold is being targeted by the Republicans.

There is a media campaign and a vote caging plan already in place.

[flyarm]

203. + 1 million!! I just read about it !!..great Job Obama and team Obama! not! eom

[defendandprotect]

224. .. and probably by the DLC corporates ... !!

[RaleighNCDUer]

262. The Republicans know exactly what they're doing.

They attack the Dem left, and tacitly ignore the Dem right which votes with them. So the Dem left has both Republicans AND RW Dems targeting them.

Funny how that works.

[EFerrari]

296. Precisely. n/t

[flyarm]

204. You would be the first person I would come to about nonsense! You are king of it! eom

[Joe Fields]

324. Feingold is just collateral damage, due to the ire of many dems

and the malaise that is sweeping the country. So many people now feel like dem leadership has not only let them down, but that there isn't much difference between the leadership of the two parties. Both parties focus on the corporate side of policies, while forgetting the citizenry. This administration has made a huge mistake in calculating the politics of stroking its base. You should always dance with the one that brung ya.

I say it's time for a line to be drawn in the sand. Call me a purist, I don't care, but I will not compromise my principles and beliefs down to meaningless utterances for this party. I will be staying home and will not vote on election day. It is my sincere hope that all democrats do the same. This country is fucked up beyond belief, but we are not going to be able to fix anything, until we get the attention of ALL those fuckers in Washington.

What do those politicians run on? They run on money (contributions), volunteers and votes. Take those away from them and they are nothing. I'm sick of carrying their water for election after election, only to be stomped on directly after. It's got to stop, but it won't, as long as meek democratic voters keep saying, "Well, we have to hold our nose and vote, because we're still better than the other side of the aisle."

I am ready to suffer some short term pain for some long term gain. As I see things, there are only two ways we can keep from being ignored. We can either band together in great numbers and put tremendous pressure on our politicians, (which has only happened twice in my lifetime, counting the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war) or we can all stay home on election day and allow the democrats to get thoroughly trounced. The republicans will take back the country at a time in history when dissatisfaction and outright anger are near all time highs. It shouldn't take but two or three years of republican rule, for austerity, for widespread poverty, homelessness unmatched since the Great Depression, starvation, dramatic increases in crimes of desperation to create a viselike grip on this once great country of ours. Then, and only then will we get noticed and receive the attention due us.

Once again I have to ask all of you how much longer are you prepared to keep playing in a rigged game?

[Dappleganger]

16. As a person who voted for him,

and did a fair amount of cheerleading, I resent being told that my basic democratic beliefs are "fringe."

I didn't ask for a pony and knew things would take a long time to turn around; only that we would get the basics done the right way and not be thrown under the bus.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Note that the OP is the quintessence of Constructive Criticism:

1) Team Obama should not gratuitously insult supporters to show how awesomely RW they are.

2) No matter how abusive the WH gets it is not "right or justified for progressives to take their ball and go home"

Both points are excellent advice.

[Exilednight]

26. He's right, but it might be time to get a NEW ball. This one seems to bounce to the right a lot.

[ProSense]

29. You forgot the this point

3) Obama has brought real change — above all, health reform

One of the most important points in his piece.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. You will note that I put it in bold in the OP

But then changed it to make the preceding point about still voting and such more prominent

(As you may recall, I was diappointed but never among the hardcore HCR detractors.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

267. Health insurance reform is a real tweak, not a real change.

Employer-based private health insurance is STILL the foundation of our healthcare system. So it got tweaked around the edges a little, reducing (though not eliminating) some of the most egregious abuses of the system. It was NOT a game changer. There are still tens of millions who cannot get health insurance in either the private sector or through the government. That means, tens of millions who cannot get health CARE.

So the unemployed kid who was forced to quit college because of skyrocketing tuition can get back on his parents insurance (at increased rates) for another 18 months - what's he do at the end of that 18 months and he is still unemployed, still not in school?

Yep - he can join the army and be all he can fucking be.

[Hello_Kitty]

46. I agree with both those premises.

As peeved as I am by the disdain shown the likes of me by the WH, I have good Democrats running for statewide and local office here in AZ, ground zero of wingnut stupidity. I am NOT ceding anything to the GOP.

[BzaDem]

18. Krugman is assuming that the apathetic portion of Obama's "base" knows who Jack Lew is.

If someone is so apathetic about politics in general that they might not turn out to vote because they aren't "enthusiastic," they sure as hell do not know who Jack Lew is. While I agree we should try as much as we can to make them see the consequences of voting vs. not voting, Obama's next appointment to lead the OMB has nothing to do with that.

If, on the other hand, someone is actually fully engaged but STILL will not vote for Obama or a congressional Democrat because Obama hasn't "made them enthusiastic," that is the EXACT type of person Obama should NOT be worrying about. These people are impossible to please and should not be considered part of Obama's base in the first place (anymore than teabaggers are).

Krugman is often spot-on when it comes to economics. Not so much when it comes to politics (though he does sometimes have interesting and correct things to say).

As for the substance of the Jack Lew appointment, I don't think it should be considered much of a poke-in-the-eye towards his base. The budget is almost certainly going to have to pass a Republican House next year, and someone like Jack Lew (with respect on both sides) has a better chance of getting the House to sign off on a budget less damaging than it otherwise might be.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. Can't win elections without those people.

American elections, even the blow-outs, are decided by a small number of people in the middle who vote based on feelings and switch back and forth.

They are nobody's base, but everybody needs them.

Many relatively disengaged young people, minorities and suburban white women will not vote or not vote Dem precisely because Obama hasn't "made them enthusiastic."

There is nothing fair about it but it's what it is.

[BzaDem]

31. I think the people you are talking about fit into my first category.

People who usually vote on "feelings" often don't follow politics very much or think it affects them much. I would agree with you that we do need these people, and should do what we can to make them enthusiastic and remind them to vote. However, I do not think these people (who don't follow politics) are going to be affected by Jack Lew or any other OMB appointment.

The people we shouldn't consider part of Obama's "base" are the people who follow politics, know what both parties stand for, know what would happen if Republicans were to take over, and yet still are considering not voting. Whether or not we need THESE people isn't relevant, as these people won't be pleased no matter what Obama does (and there are plenty of people who are much more likely to vote).

[JDPriestly]

153. Winning elections depends on whether your base gets the vote out.

It's the base that swings the "swing voters."

I am usually an enthusiastic get-out-the-vote member of the Democratic Party. Not this year. I will vote Democratic, but frankly, I can't talk to voters because I don't like what has happened thus far. What in the world would I say?

[w4rma]

55. It works like this. If the DLC corporatists currently in the drivers seat is attacking the base then

the base will attack the DLC corporatists right back and there are many many fewer people out there knocking on doors and making phone calls and helping with the GOTV or helping to convince people to support Democrats. That is because the same people that these Wall Street flunkies are attacking are the very people that actually volunteer. The moderates and the apathetic do not. They may vote or give some money, but that is all.

[suzie]

176. When I read the constant allegations on DU that the "Left" is the group that does the work

on campaigns and the "DLC corporatists" that support Obama don't do anything, I have to wonder if I've simply been working on different campaigns all these years.

Because I've never seen the "Left" that is spoken about doing any significant work on campaigns. As individuals, they may show up to complain that things are being done wrong in the national/state campaign, which will cause Democrats to lose. And then they leave--but they don't make phone calls or knock on doors.

After a week or so, they'll put in an appearance to remark on how badly things are going this week.

The ordinary folks that do the work on campaigns don't label themselves DLC, or moderates, or Left--they just do the work that wins campaigns.

[flyarm]

206. I have lived in 9 states and have worked on campaigns for 40 years..the Left has always been the

biggest GOTV campaigners. I don't know where you are, but what you described is not the norm!

The left and the progressives have been the most engaged in the 9 states I have lived in. I have also traveled for the DNC and worked on elections in numerous states as well as my own, and again, the most engaged in GOYV are the Left and true liberals and progressives!

The DLC types show up at the end and walk around like their shit doesn't stink! They are not the workers on the ground! And they are generally PAID to show up at the end. They are not the volunteers!

Oh and I have lived in pretty big states..Calif. and Fla being the most recent! Oh and I also housed the Field rreps sent into my areas and helped run huge Democratic campaign offices! I think I know who does the work on the ground. And it is not the DLC type's kid who gets sent in to sit and look good and pick their nose and stuff their NEW Resume!

[suzie]

306. I've in 8 states and worked on campaigns for 40 years.

But, the fact that I never traveled on the DNC nickel, but catered numerous fundraisers myself and candidate meet and greets out of my own pocket--that makes me somehow less knowledgeable about campaigns than you?

The fact that I've worked on campaigns where my boss was running for office or my close personal friends--that makes me less expert about who is the most engaged than someone who traveled for the DNC?

The fact that my friends and I are the volunteers that spend their time explaining to the paid Fields Reps what the local situation on the ground is like and how it really isn't polite to turn up your nose at the local delicacies, even if it doesn't suit your New York palate, that makes you more informed than I about the workers on the ground?

As the kids say, ROFLMAO!

EDIT: One of the reasons that I liked the Obama campaign was that they sent Field Reps who had actually grown up and gone to college within a 150 mile radius of the locality where they were to work and didn't have to have a volunteer hold their hand every single minute.

[RaleighNCDUer]

277. Believe me, if "the left" did NOT show up, you'd notice.

We're not out there waving red flags and wearing Mao caps. We look just like you do. The fact is, we are THERE. Unless we are driven out of the party.

[suzie]

312. Perhaps I didn't clarify enough. I said "the Left that is spoken about" meaning those

who show up on DU to whine, complain, moan about everything done by Obama or Democrats.

Plenty of people have pointed out that those who consider themselves "Liberal, progressive" still support Obama in large numbers.

Except that on DU, to support Obama somehow translates to "DLCer, cheerleader, DLC corporatist, conservadem" or whatever the appellation of the day is.

I'd have to agree with you, that one can't really tell who is "Left" or "conservadems" are when out where the worker bees are. Perhaps you need to talk with Flyarm, because he seems to be able to have some clairvoyant ability to sort Democrats into categories way better than I.

I can tell the "Left" or "Progressives" at the local level who like to whine as much as who claim to be the "Progressive Left" on DU. And I'm here to tell you, they're rarely--in my experience--the worker bees.

But if you can't tell the Leftists, then the polls must be correct, because the volunteers who work a lot in my local campaigns--still big Obama supporters.

[RaleighNCDUer]

318. Well, here's a clue -

anyone who complains about 'whining' progressives, isn't.

[suzie]

392. Guess there are some things that haven't changed in 40 years--males telling females that

they're not quite good enough to be "progressives" or "leftists".

But in the meantime, just keep making those campaign phone calls, putting together those voter lists, walking the streets.

Makes me remember why many of us said, "Enough", and worked for our own "progressive" ideas.

[zipplewrath]

183. It is a current example

Krugman could have listed pages of instances just like this where the administration has missed opportunities to communicate directly with progressives, and instead has chosen to try to calm conservatives. Krugman is as much newsman these days as he is an economist and he's going to have a preference for "current" references.

[defendandprotect]

225. Right ... did the article repeat it? Think Lew is an ex-CITICORP EXEC--???

Just more Obama seeking corporate decision makers!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

274. Lew, the head of Citigroup's Alternative Investments?

Wouldn't that be the guy who was in charge of Citigroup's derivitives operations during the housing bubble?

We're supposed to be pleased that he's to head OMB?

And, it might be noted, 'not enthusiastic' does not mean 'won't vote'. It means that there will be a dearth of people knocking on doors, donating time and money, or even talking up the administration with our friends.

And I, for one, as a discouraged, unappreciated lefty, do NOT believe we will face a Republican House next year - only the wingers, and their DLC buddies, really seem to believe that.

[Jamastiene]

20. K&R

[ProSense]

21. "Obama has brought real change — above all, health reform"

This is the problem with Krugman's statement. He's right about health reform, but he's worried about some irrelevant slight.

The people who are upset with this administration believe health reform was a sellout so no amount of coddling by the administration is going to change that.

That is the disconnect: When the President points to health care reform as significant progress (Krugman agrees) and rejects his critics (Krugman calls it yelling at the base).

Obama is not on the ballot. People like Boxer, Feingold and others are. The hyperfocus on off the cuff comments (and there haven't been many of them) is ridiculous.

Even Howard Dean isn't seeing the alleged effects of these comments.

[defendandprotect]

227. Obama ridiculing the new for universal health care is pathetic ... not a slight ...

every other nation has universal health care -- but Americans should be laughed at

for wanting the same?

We can't afford it?

Anyone in their right mind believe that?

What we can't afford is Obama's pouring taxpayer money into the pockets of corporations --

his overly-solicitous concerns for Repugs -- his back room deals with big pharma and

health care industry -- and his turning government affairs over to Republicans like

Alan Simpson!!

[ChiciB1]

255. Ya Know What? My Son's Insurance Company Just Raised His Premiums To

OVER $100.00 a month!! I'm SICK of hearing about HOW WONDERFUL HCR is! He's barely getting by, just had a son and works long, long hours to make ends meet! He feels like he got kicked in the gut! I feel the same way!

I, on the other hand was fortunate enough to have been married to a man who belonged to a UNION! I have fairly decent health care insurance, but I wonder for how long! For ME to even ASK that question makes me MAD! What I once felt was going to BE THERE for me, just may NOT BE! I don't mind having "some" things changed and paying a "little" more for the sake of others, but THIS HCR worries me a LOT!

Going back to fix it is the "cry!" Yeah, like they did with NAFTA! At the rate things are going and how MUCH this administration has alienated the "base" I come from, it's nothing more than a slap in the face!

AND PLEASE, don't EVEN bother repeating that "would you rather have" I'm TOTALLY SICK of that comment! DLC types have almost ruined the Democratic Party I've known for all too many years! I UNDERSTAND change, I just don't understand WHY I have to have a KNIFE stuck in my back to SUPPORT it! You know that saying... "learn from your mistakes, etc.," well I just don't know WHY it can't apply just a little bit these days! But NO, we get kicked under the bus, to the wayside and called names to boot!

FOR SHAME!

[ClarkUSA]

24. Funny, I don't feel alienated. So how many national elections has Krugman won? Oh, none.

Nevermind. :rofl:

Usually Krugman writes economic op-eds from his professorial ivory tower but now wants to be David Axelrod. I agree with him on the real change that HCR brings but he really should leave the political strategizing to the man and his team who won the presidency against all odds with the largest margin of victory since LBJ.

[Forkboy]

33. "Funny, I don't feel alienated."

Well, that settles it for everybody then!

[ClarkUSA]

35. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

:P

[Forkboy]

36. Anytime.

I had a Repub brother in law for awhile, and I remember under Bush I was complaining about the war in Iraq, and he said, "Hey, I'm not in Iraq, who cares?".

I envy people like you and him, and strive to emulate people such as yourself. Someone's house burns down, who cares? Mine didn't. I remember when my friend's wife died in an accident...I told him my wife was doing great! It was awesome to remind him how great life really was when he was feeling so down. I think he was grateful.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Just thought I'd get it out there that I and my OFA group don't feel a bit "alienated".

Nor do the millions of self-described liberal Democrats who strongly approve of the job President Obama is doing in poll after poll for the past two years.

Midterms for the party in power are historically almost always losers and this midterm will not be any different.

<< I had a Repub brother in law for awhile, and I remember under Bush I was complaining about the war in Iraq, and he said, "Hey, I'm not in Iraq, who cares?".

I envy people like you and him, and strive to emulate people such as yourself. Someone's house burns down, who cares? Mine didn't. I remember when my friend's wife died in an accident...I told him my wife was doing great! It was awesome to remind him how great life really was when he was feeling so down. I think he was grateful. >>

Sorry, I'm not into bad fiction. :rofl:

[Forkboy]

40. I'm sure you had time to consult with them.

Speaking of bad fiction....at least mine was intentional. :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

43. Don't have to. I GOTV with them regularly, unlike some people.

<< Speaking of bad fiction....at least mine was intentional. >>

Don't think so. Nice try at saving face, though.

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

48. You got to be kidding.

:rofl:

Yeah, the "I think he was grateful." was a sure sign of my seriousness. You're fucking killing me. Without a doubt the funniest DU moment I've had in a LONG time. On the next fund drive, I got your back, because this kind of comedy is hard to come by. :rofl:

Thanks for actually believing that was real, hence making that post even funnier than I originally thought it was (and I was chuckling quite a bit as I posted it to you). No wonder you don't feel alienated, when even such blatant satire evades your grasp. :rofl:

Be careful of the post below about the dog.....that's a true story as well....no shit, dude. I swear!!!!


:rofl:

Dude, you are awesome, and just totally made my night! There's not enough fucking smilies in the world to convey this. :rofl:

And just for the record, because there aren't enough of these in my post already.....


:rofl:

[BzaDem]

64. You should probably put down the reefer. n/t

[Forkboy]

66. LOL...even you can do better than that.

I know you want to cheer your guy on, but seriously....

I shouldn't have to tell you this.

[BzaDem]

68. Given the "competition," the bar for me "having to do better" is pretty low.

You'll probably find that out tomorrow morning if you have sobered up by then.

[Forkboy]

69. Yeah, no shit!

But seriously folks, did you also buy my satire in the above post? Part of me hopes you did for the humor value alone, but the sane part of me hopes you were smart enough to see it for what it was.

Always a tough call here on DU these days, so please, lift my spirits.

[Fumesucker]

41. Did you note the OP about the DUer whose dog had died?

A bunch of other DUers got on there and told him (or her) that their pet was doing fine and what the fuck was he (or she) whining about.

That's the kind of people we have on DU now..










:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

42. LOL....that's just bad fiction!!!!

;)

[Fumesucker]

47. I couldn't find that emoticon..

So fucking sue me..

:hi:

[Forkboy]

50. Well, he believed my post, so there's hope for yours.

:rofl:

:)

[harun]

175. +1

[PassingFair]

197. I'm in a WEALTH CYCLE!

:puke:

[Greyhound]

223. If I thought they actually believed this crap, I'd worry that much about the lack of

mental health care in this country. As it is, I can hear the clickety-click of doctoral candidates writing their thesis all over the world.
:rofl:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Skittles]

44. it is not funny that you don't feel alienated

it is downright PATHETIC

[ClarkUSA]

63. lol! "downright PATHETIC" = 24/7 attacks that are aimed at Pres. Obama & his supporters

Newsflash: I and other Obama supporters/OFA members are an activist and integral part of "the base". We are millions strong and we are collectively working hard to GOTV for the midterms in support of Democratic candidates.

History says the party in power nearly always loses seats especially during economic downturns but we are not giving up. We will continue to support the Democratic party, we do not feel alienated and we will fight the good fight against very tough odds until Election Day while others do nothing but complain bitterly in perpetual outrage.

[Forkboy]

67. Well, it's in bold, so I'm a believer.

[liberation]

171. I am not convinced yet, I need to see more circular self referring blue links...

... before it becomes a matter of truth just because.

And some cow bell too, for good measure.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

49. Why would you think the OP doesn't support Dems? n/t

[carolinayellowdog]

54. There's a compulsive aspect to this kind of traitor accusation

I've been a member since 2002 and it's really distressing to see people I USED TO RESPECT AS BIG TENT LIBERALS turning into party discipline bullies who do nothing but attack other DUers all day.

[JNelson6563]

60. Yeah, ol' DU has changed alright!

You may recall then the days when DU was a safe haven for Democrats and those who clearly hated Dems posted elsewhere. Remember when the attacks we read day in and day out on DU were against Rethugs? I do. I dare say I am even hoping DU may one day be like that again. If you take offense at that then perhaps you may want to follow those who will be posting elsewhere if that ever happens.

Those who have nothing but negative things to say about all things Dem really shouldn't be posting on a board for Dems and I marvel at how many get suckered into supporting their crap.

Julie--who is cracking up at being called a "bully"

[ClarkUSA]

61. +1

:yourock:

[Forkboy]

73. I'm going to keep posting right here.

I remember when DU was against Rethug ideas, including being against gay marriage. I think I even remember when you cared about this issue. Or were you just against it because Bush was for it? Tough to remember who were the allies back then....

Forkboy --- who is cracking up at those who claimed to care for things they no longer seem to care about.

[Le Taz Hot]

182. Wow!

Things have changed alright. People formerly capable of independent thought with vital critical thinking skills, people whom I've always respected, are now party robots. That's a sad thing.

Personally, I don't remember a time when DU "was a safe haven for Democrats." There have always been critics but we had a common enemy then and the focus was GWB. When Obama was elected the elation by Dem supporters and critics alike was unanimous on DU. Then he made his first appointments and the light, for some of us, dimmed a little. And it didn't get any better as time went on so yes, we criticize and yes, we hold his and other Dems' feet to the fire. To ignore the vast corruption that currently exists within BOTH PARTIES is to write the script for this nations' demise. I, at least, plan to go down fighting.

[carolinayellowdog]

214. I was here for the lovefest, not the hatefest-- and it's OVER, GONE

Interesting that the basis of our past unity is alleged to be shared hatred. As much as I hated the 2000 election theft and what Bush/Cheney did to the country, I was an enthusiastic DUer from 2002-2004 because this was such a supportive, welcoming, friendly place. After the 2004 election I was confronted by so much eliminationist rhetoric against all Southerners that I no longer felt very welcome here despite a 100% D voting record. So lapsed into lurking thereafter with only occasional posts. Now I see that DU has become even more unwelcoming, as southerners have been replaced by progressive critics as the enemy du jour. And alas I'm every bit as much a progressive critic as a Virginian.

[DirkGently]

65. Yep. Ironically, the would-be enforcers hurt the Party more than critics.

[carolinayellowdog]

70. There are real haters here, and they're obvious

Neither Krugman nor the OP have shown themselves to be enemies of the Democratic Party, nor have most DUers who have expressed disappointment in Obama. Yet a very vocal minority here insists on defining-- and PUNISHING-- *any criticism of any Democrat* as *hatred of all Democrats.* This then becomes justification for spending their lives hating and denouncing fellow DUers as traitors to the party. What empty lives people must have to spend hours daily attacking fellow Democrats for disloyalty.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Actually, 24/7 "critics" hurt the Party more than its supporters, especially now before the midterms

You see, Obama supporters (as opposed to the Perpetually Outraged "critics" who don't seem inclined to lift a finger to help "the Party") are actually the ones with their boots on the ground trying to help the Democratic Party win this midterm cycle against some very tough odds.

[DirkGently]

75. Sorry, but that's wrong. "Boots on the ground doesn't mean "boots on Democrats' necks."

Leave the thuggery to the Republicans. You can't berate people into agreeing with you. If you have a thoughtful response, make it. If your message is "Shut up," all you're doing is pissing off the people you're trying to "convince." Surely this isn't a difficult concept?

[ClarkUSA]

76. Throwing out red herrings and making strawman arguments doesn't obscure my salient points.

While you're fulminating, I'll be supporting the Democratic party and our President.

:)

[DirkGently]

77. Boy, that was generic. Do you, or do you not, get that yelling at Democrats to shut up NEVER works?

That's kind of a point of pride with Democrats. If you were arguing thoughtfully, that'd be different. But you just seem focused on demonizing people who say things you don't like. Can you give an example of that "strategy" ever working politically?

[ClarkUSA]

79. No, "that" was true. And who's the one "yelling" here? I'm not the one using large caps.

<< But you just seem focused on demonizing people who say things you don't like. >>

Look in the mirror: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9177984

[DirkGently]

80. Just trying to help you understand the rather simple concept that attacking (as you've done again)

doesn't convince anyone of anything. If you think a criticism is unfair, why don't you explain it, instead of mischaracterizing the issue as being about "24/7" critics?

[ClarkUSA]

85. Another red herring. More strawman arguments. How predictable.

:boring:

[liberation]

172. I don't think either of those terms mean what you think they do.

LOL

[ClarkUSA]

230. You'd be wrong. Why don't you tell me what you "don't think" I "think"?

:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

291. You seem incapable of getting it - we ARE the Democratic party.

As much, maybe more so, than the 'Dems for today' who were the Reagan Democrats, the libertarians who backed Perot, the conservatives who hammered Clinton over a blow job and voted for Bush to 'restore America's honor', then came back to the Democrats after realizing their mistake.

Some on the left have their own problems, but they NEVER voted for Reagan or Bush or Bush.

The left, such as it is, has been and will be a part of the Democratic Party until such day as we are pushed out by the corporatists.

We have no interest in destroying the Democratic party - we simply want it to live up to its historic principles and will not be bullied into taking the back seat.

[Mojorabbit]

+10000 nt

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

51. Interesting that rather than take Krugman's observation to heart

obvious as the consequences of it are to anyone paying attention some people simply can't help but to jump right on the bandwagon and keep pounding away.

Just checked Nate Silver's line today, he has it 223.4 to 211.6 in the House with a net loss of between 7-8 Senate seats from last's ostensible 60.

Any way one looks at it, that's a pretty impressive turnaround- much of which can be attributed to the compulsion that Krugman describes.

[mmonk]

52. Someone had to say it.

That is, someone that gets noticed. Many of us have been saying it but are continually told we are too small and insignificant to matter.

[laughingliberal]

56. Another example today. The WH is considering a prominent corporate CEO to replace Summers.

How many more ways can they tell us we're not their priority? I don't even buy the 'bubble' business anymore. They know what they're doing. They favor these pro-bidness, anti worker, anti poor economic policies and it's a nuisance to have to ask for our votes every couple of years.

[ClarkUSA]

72. Uh huh. I suppose Elizabeth Warren's appointment to the WH inner circle is just a fluke?

:sarcasm:

[DirkGently]

78. Actually, that's a good thing. Other things aren't so good. Can you agree with this principle?

[ClarkUSA]

81. Yes. Prime rib is "a good thing. Other things" such as chicken liver "aren't so good."

:rofl:

[DirkGently]

82. Nice dodge. Do you think *any* criticism is fair, or not? Examples?

[ClarkUSA]

86. Tsk, tsk. Something as important as "principle" cannot suddenly be a "nice dodge".

:rofl:

[DirkGently]

89. So, you can't acknowledge a single valid criticism. Speaks volumes.

[ClarkUSA]

103. Well, I'm outraged that Pres. Obama doesn't make more jokes about the idiots who criticize him 24/7.

I am so upset that I almost took off my Obama car magnet yesterday when I heard he only made one little joke at that CT fundraiser. :cry:

I'm so disappointed that I almost feel -- dare I say it? -- alienated.







:rofl:

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[DirkGently]

236. That's what I always thought as well. Dems leave partisan hackery to the RW.

[depakid]

83. Actually it remains to be seen how much (if any) real power that she'll have

Symbolic gestures don't count for much in the reality based community.

[DirkGently]

84. A valid concern. Just trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Your rhetoric is baseless speculation that is contradicted by Elizabeth Warren and Pres. Obama.

<< Actually it remains to be seen how much (if any) real power that she'll have >>

Says who? You? Funny how Elizabeth Warren isn't concerned:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gd-SA_SLXHi7CpdgzNYvnrx9jzGwD9IC9E881

Your spin is also contradicted by President Obama:

"Now, getting this agency off the ground will be an enormously important task, a task that can’t wait. And that task is something that I’ve asked Elizabeth to take on. Secretary Geithner and I both agree that Elizabeth is the best person to stand this agency up. She was the architect behind the idea for a consumer watchdog, so it only makes sense that she’d be the -- she should be the architect working with Secretary of Treasury Geithner in standing up the agency.

She will help oversee all aspects of the bureau’s creation, from staff recruitment to designing policy initiatives to future decisions about the agency. She will have direct access to me and to Secretary Geithner, and she will oversee a staff at the Treasury Department that has already begun to work on this task.

She will also play a pivotal role in helping me determine who the best choice is for director of the bureau. And given the importance of these economic issues, I also want Elizabeth to have a role as a White House advisor as well as advisor to Secretary Geithner on consumer issues."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x446005

<< Symbolic gestures don't count for much in the reality based community. >>

Do you fancy yourself a spokesperson for "the reality-based community"? Really? What does that phrase mean exactly?

While you're pondering that, let's see what Elizabeth Warren has been doing. I hear she's hit the ground running today, working with Geithner to simplify mortgage disclosures:

http://news.google.com/news/story?client=safari&rls=en&q=elizabeth+warren&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=d3it1uhDF-fVCoM7fo5HQQrKLr4dM&hl=en&ei=FnaZTNS-FoOClAfku8wB&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQqgIwAA

:)

[depakid]

97. It's not rhetoric nor is it speculation- only time (and actions) will tell

how much (if any) real power that she has- or can exert from this position.

We shall see.

Based on the administration's record to date at the various agencies, one would be well advised to remain skeptical until one sees the proof of the pudding.

[ClarkUSA]

108. Sure it is. The facts already contradict your baseless rhetoric, as I've already proven.

Proof that your rhetoric is baseless:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9178363

:)

[depakid]

120. That's just a bizarre response and no, you haven't "proven" anything

nor adduced any pertinent facts to support your position (whatever it is) because there aren't any yet.

Six months from now- maybe you'll be enjoying crow pie, or maybe I'll be celebrating meaningful enforcement of consumer protections against predatory corporations

Sadly, based on the record to date, I suspect the former is more likely.

[ClarkUSA]

146. lol! Keep spinning. I linked to credible news sources which you promptly ignored.

You seem to dislike all of the Democratic legislative efforts under this Democratic president and those who support Democrats and this Democratic president as well.

Why do you spend so much time on a site that supports Democrats?

[depakid]

162. "Why do you spend so much time on a site that supports Democrats?"

Simple answer- because no matter where I've lived both in the states or abroad, I've supported and worked hard in the trenches for groups representing traditional Democratic values- and have always and will always advocate (or write) public polices that further those values.

Not so different than Jeff Merkley, Wayne Morse or :gasp: Tom McCall when it comes right down to it.

Might be enlightening- and very positive to learn about that line of leaders.

[ClarkUSA]

243. You seem to dislike all of the Democratic legislative efforts under this Democratic president.

Why do you spend so much time on a site that supports Democrats if you don't support the Democratic Party, the Democratic President and his policies, the Democratic Congress and their legislative goals and the Democratic supporters of the Democratic Party and the Democratic president?

[ClarkUSA]

264. McCall & Morse = Republicans. Jeff Merkley has never called Pres. Obama "politically pathological".

So two out of three of the "leaders" you say you're emulating are Republicans now long deceased. Now we know you admire Rockefeller Republicans, depakid.

Jeff Merkley has never repeatedly attacked or disparaged this President or his administration, so you're hardly emulating his approach to politics and governance.

What are you doing now "in the trenches for groups" from all the way in New South Wales, Australia?

[depakid]

384. That belies so much misunderstanding that one is hard pressed to know how to respond

Wayne Morse was one of only two Senators to have the courage to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Tom McCall was more progressive than 90% of the Democrats in office today and essentially made Oregon into the state that it became BY ENACTING PROGRESSIVE POLICIES.

This is where you and I differ. I believe in the principles and policies- as in solving problems. You seem only to care about politicians and whatever the party line of the day is.

Irrespective of whether it solves problems or improves the lives of ordinary people, society or the environment.

In the spirt of offering some understanding- here are the wiki's on Morse & McCall.

This is what principled leadership looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse#Senate_career_1960.E2.80.9368

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_McCall

[Art_from_Ark]

122. She'll be a "special adviser"

whatever that entails

[KoKo]

193. I hope it's not being the one who serves the coffee and doughnuts...

Sorry for snark...but who know what it will mean for her. She wasn't even allowed to speak at the Presser for her announcement. Obama announced her appointment with her standing by his side and then they walked off the podium and into the White House. No comment from Warren. Usually the appointee thanks the President and says they hope to serve the country...blah, blah, blah. But, there wasn't an opportunity. Maybe she didn't wish to speak...but it seemed odd for her not to talk about what she and the President agreed would be the role of the new Agency that she's advising to set up. :shrug:

[Art_from_Ark]

399. It does seem a bit odd

that someone would appoint a person to be his "special adviser" and during the official announcement the "special adviser" would be little more than a prop. Like you said, one would expect to at least hear a short speech from the appointee

[laughingliberal]

95. I'm glad Warren got some position where she may be allowed some power. It does remain to be seen.

That will not make up for seeing the Dimon or some other equally odious supply sider joining the administration. I'd like to see us move away from the Goldman Sachs economic policies before we're all in the streets starving. I know...that would be me 'wanting a pony.'

[ClarkUSA]

112. No, it's already been "seen" what she can do.

I hear she's hit the ground running yesterday, working with Geithner to simplify mortgage disclosures:

http://news.google.com/news/story?client=safari&rls=en&q=elizabeth+warren&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=d3it1uhDF-fVCoM7fo5HQQrKLr4dM&hl=en&ei=FnaZTNS-FoOClAfku8wB&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQqgIwAA

<< I'd like to see us move away from the Goldman Sachs economic policies before we're all in the streets starving. >>

What does that mean, exactly? I'm not into catchy phrases and fear-based hyperbole.

[laughingliberal]

135. It does remain to be seen what changes to policy will result. I'm glad she has a role.

It means I have seen the administration's economic team institute far more policies to benefit Wall Street than to benefit the rest of us. Obama just appointed a top exec from Citigroup to head his OMB. Robert Rubin remains an advisor. I see far more friends of Wall Street and the banks on his economic team than I do friends of working people or the poor.

[ClarkUSA]

266. Did you read any of the facts I keep giving you on what she's doing now?

You keep repeating the "remain to be seen" meme which I have debunked several times because the Google link I gave you detailed how she is tackling the issue of simplifying mortgage disclosures with Geithner's full support and partnership right now.

BTW, do you have any proof for your many claims and numerous opinions? I have seen you offer none, despite my repeated requests.

[RaleighNCDUer]

295. You do understand how "tackling an issue" and "accomplishing" something

are different?

Case in point. Congress "tackled the issue" of DADT yesterday. Is it time to break out the party hats?

[rhett o rick]

322. I support the president's appointment of Warren. Do you? nm

[highplainsdem]

71. K&R

[Radical Activist]

88. Actually, he does to dog whistle politics.

And he does his most progressive acts relatively quietly. But much of the left punditry are missing it and instead get lost on idiotic tangents.
For example, his BP speech was a denunciation of the entire conservative philosophy and Reagan era but some pundits ignored that because they wanted to be OUTRAGED that he dared to suggest people should pray. What a fucking waste.

[DirkGently]

90. What do you think of the piece? Are the jabs at "the professional left" constructive?

[Radical Activist]

91. There were pundits who deserved to be called out for their bullshit.

Should a pundit who attacks the President on a regular basis get all butthurt that someone finally answered back? Pathetic. Some of our left pundits are completely clueless about how to be constructive. Cynicism, ridicule and destruction are all they know.

[DirkGently]

99. But they do generally speak for liberals. Was it wise to glibly generalize and dismiss them?

[Radical Activist]

100. No, they really don't speak for liberals.

A large majority of liberals support the President and don't appreciate hysterical exaggerations. The anti-Obama crew at DU are the small minority among progressives.

[Le Taz Hot]

187. Since when do you speak for

"a large amount of liberals?" Pot, meet kettle.

[RaleighNCDUer]

297. Obviously, despite all evidence, he calls himself a 'liberal'.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry - depends on if he really believes it, and we will never know.

[KoKo]

194. So..where are your polling statistics about who liberals are and who and what they support?

hmmm? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

242. Every poll on the topic has the same result.

Find any poll of how liberals feel about Obama and that will be your example.

[DirkGently]

217. Isn't that a false dichotomy? Don't "supporters "criticize? Isn't the "small minority" the

critic-bashing "crew" who acknowledge no legitimate criticisms, and swarm threads not to discuss, but to attack and question the motives of Democrats who most likely voted and even campaigned for Obama, and most likely do "support" the administration, but who have serious questions about compromises made, quids pro quo'd, drug tests suggested?

What anti-critic here has acknowledged a single, reasonable criticism of the President or the administration in recent memory? Most of the people I find myself agreeing with have offered both criticism AND praise, where it's due. I don't find that to be the case with those (and it is a very small minority indeed) who swarm every critical thread.


I see two main points,

1) Constitutents are not paid partisans, and their "job" as "supporters" is not limited to repeating leaders' political talking points. The "job" of constituents is to tell leaders what they like, what they don't like, what they want, and what they do not want. The leaders' "job" is to listen. Our leaders serve at our sufferance, not the other way around. Trying to browbeat or drown out the demands of constitutents, or demand their silent unqualified agreement with the party line, is not only un-democratic, but patently ineffective. Trying to squelch criticism from within is a weak and fearful tactic that does nothing but divide and dilute the party, particularly one as notorioiusly inclusive and traditionally friendly to free thinkers as the Democratic Party.

2) There is no basis to question the motives of the Greenwalds and Krugmans and Huffingtons and Tom Tomorrows of the world. None. They are liberals who we know to have passionately supported the political aims of most of the people who make up a site like this, and the Democratic party in general. They are not Fox News. They do not become The Enemy in election season, when politcal operatives would like to reduce everything to a binary proposition in which, as Mr. Bush said, "You're with us or agin' us." Politicians are free to do that, but it is antithetical to everything that makes the Democratic Party, or any party worthwhile, to suggest that constitutents should parrot talking points or spin facts, or in any way take the demonstrably unrealistic stance that there is nothing to complain about. And it doesn't work. Lockstep partisanship is a notoriously Neocon ideology that no one should emulate. And let's remember: it ultimately failed.

Complaining is our job as constituents, and it doesn't end six months or two months, or five minutes before an election. Spinning is for people being paid to propagandize, and it is frankly harmful to the national discourse to suggest that ordinary Americans should behave like the bubble-headed partisan hacks Jon Stewart so effectively eviscerated when he appeared on Crossfire and shamed that embarrassing spectacle into the sunset.



Editted for speling.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

228. ^ ^ ^ This is an Excellent Post

[Radical Activist]

232. "who acknowledge no legitimate criticisms"

I really wish we had more legitimate criticism of Obama on this site. I wish I wasn't responding to someone spinning the deficit commission to declare that Obama is "leading the assault on social security." Or to someone playing the martyr because someone at the white house dared to respond to attacks. Or the conspiracy theories about Obama's secret mission to destroy teachers and public education. I would really love it if there were more fact-based *legitimate, reasonable* criticism on DU to agree with.

[DirkGently]

252. Can you give an example of critique you find "legitimate?"

[Radical Activist]

257. Anything based in fact rather than exaggeration, speculation and hyperbole.

It's in short supply.

[DirkGently]

260. Can you name a specific critique you accept? If not, do you see where you appear absolutist?

[Radical Activist]

240. swarm

And it's a little funny for you to play the victim with complaints about being silenced and swarmed. How many people are responding to me in this thread? Does that qualify as a swarm yet? When I post in these threads I usually get PMs thanking me for standing up to the anti-Obama swarm because people get tired of the insults. And they get tired of perpetual victims who claimed they're being "silenced" when someone responds to their ridiculous arguments.
Why don't you find the last time depakid or laughingliberal wrote an OP praising anything Obama has done.

"Complaining is our job as constituents"
No, our job is to get progressive legislation passed into law. Letting the Senate roadblock off the hook by engaging in a never-ending gripe-fest about Obama doesn't help accomplish that goal.

And, yes I can question the motives of pundits who make money by bringing attention to themselves with outrageous statements that often divide and insult Democratic voters.

[DirkGently]

251. No, passing laws is the job of our leaders, who work for US. And isn't calling out other DUers

against the rules? I think that in itself amply demonstrates where the good faith lies here.



Edited for syntax.

[Radical Activist]

258. It's no more

against the rules than your group insult to Obama supporters in your last post. You really shouldn't get self righteous about acting in good faith when you're insulting other progressives who are simply defending an ally in the White House.

[DirkGently]

261. I'm an Obama supporter. I criticized absolutist attacks. You called out names. No dice.

[Radical Activist]

268. Grief and swarm strikes again.

I'm done letting you try to bait me and play victim.

[DirkGently]

269. I'm trying to converse. You're making accusations. Can you not simply name a "legit" critique?

[ClarkUSA]

279. Yup. That's their MO, alright.

<< I'm done letting you try to bait me and play victim. >>

Yes, it's a real :boring: when they pull out the :nopity:

[DirkGently]

280. Can't name a "legitimate" critique either? Can you see how that looks unreasonable?

[ClarkUSA]

303. Is that a buzzing sound I hear?

:rofl:

[DirkGently]

344. Truly, a convincing Emoticon. Have you thought of the Obama critique you approve of yet?

[creon]

365. I am as well.

I support Obama as well. I think that he has more sense than most of the politicals in Washington.

I suspect that is his biggest liabilty as president.

[Radical Activist]

92. Unlike Krugman, I can distinguish between Obama's progressive base

and the pundits who have their own self-serving agendas.

[KoKo]

195. Got a PHD? Any creds? You a professional pollster? A position in Dem Party?

Elected Official? Or, is you keyboard in the basement and your view is from the small window above the crate? It's hard to know from your numerous posts which are all antagonistic without substance.

[laughingliberal]

96. Sure, I heard the signal he was on my side when he appointed a guy who believes deregulation didn't

...create the economic crisis. I could see how that signaled he is planning to move left. :sarcasm:

[Radical Activist]

98. Krugman says the guy was right. Do you hate Krugman now?

[laughingliberal]

102. I don't hate anybody. I agree or disagree with their policies and I hate the effect some of them...

have had on my life. I have found no politician, economist, journalist, or anyone else I agree with 100%. Krugman gets it far more often than most on Obama's team but he's not infallible, either. And, the sense in which he said the guy was right was pretty narrow.

[Radical Activist]

113. There's a point

when a person continually attacks a progressive politician, even on issues in which they agree, that it becomes difficult to believe that person is a supporter or even objectively focused on issues.

At least you're owning up to your arguments instead of playing dumb while asking me questions on every single thread I posted in like you did for a while. I appreciate the straightforwardness about your hostility toward Obama.

[laughingliberal]

118. I don't recall asking you a lot of questions. And I don't recall attacking politicians. I do oppose

a lot of the economic policy that has come out of Obama's team. It's too far right, and it's got us scrambling at the midterms. I have no hostility towards Obama but nice try at putting words in my mouth that directly contradict what I said. I don't like the economic policies, for the most part, that this administration has pushed.

typo in subject line

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

131. I didn't say I didn't respond to you. I said I don't recall asking you a lot of questions. nt

[eilen]

209. To quote a famous Republican

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others."


Frederick Douglass, 1857

[Enthusiast]

216. What a brilliant man!

He deserves far more respect and recognition than he has received.

[depakid]

104. That's not what he said

[Radical Activist]

106. "I think he may technically be right"

That's what he said.

[depakid]

116. Read the whole statement

...failure to extend regulation to keep up with financial innovation.

:eyes:

[displacedvermoter]

345. Not really, Krugman said the guy was right in that deregulation

itself didn't cause the problem, the fact that the regulation didn't keep up with the chicanery
at hand led to disaster. He also said the statement was a mixed message from the Administration from someone who shouldn't be sending such messages. Nice try though.

Displaced

[Enthusiast]

215. The economic crisis was a

direct result of deregulation. Anyone that suggests otherwise just isn't being honest. And THAT is a fact.

[PassingFair]

200. He's got the wrong frequency then.

Only Blue and YellowDogs seem to
hear it.

[eilen]

208. Most of us preferred to evaluate his actions in regard to BP

rather than his words.

[Radical Activist]

272. Right, Obama is attacked for not using the bully pulpit

until he does, at which point it doesn't mean anything because only actions count.

He took the most important actions before the spill really happened anyway. He had already moved to reduce our dependence on oil by improving fuel economy standards, taking old clunkers off the road, and making investments in alternative vehicles. So his actions were right on, imo.

[Radical Activist]

93. "All you’re doing is undermining the enthusiasm of people you need."

Was Krugman looking in the mirror as he wrote this?

[depakid]

101. Actually, he's warned several times before about insulting supporters and key constituencies

Unfortunately, despite the obvious consequences, neither members of the administration nor the Presidents followers appear to be capable of heeding the advice. Hence the word "compulsion."

Here's one for example from back in July:

b]Curbing Your Enthusiasm

Why does the Obama administration keep looking for love in all the wrong places? Why does it go out of its way to alienate its friends, while wooing people who will never waver in their hatred?

...progressive disillusionment isn’t just a matter of sky-high expectations meeting prosaic reality. Threatened filibusters didn’t force Mr. Obama to waffle on torture; to escalate in Afghanistan; to choose, with exquisitely bad timing, to loosen the rules on offshore drilling early this year.

Then there are the appointments. Yes, the administration needed experienced hands. But did all the senior members of the economics team have to be protégés of Robert Rubin, the apostle of financial deregulation? Was it necessary to install Ken Salazar at the Interior Department over the objections of environmentalists who feared, rightly, that his ties to extractive industries would make him slow to clean up a corrupt agency?

And where’s this administration’s Frances Perkins? As F.D.R.’s labor secretary, Perkins, a longtime crusader for workers’ rights, served as a symbol of the New Deal’s commitment to change. I have nothing against Hilda Solis, the current labor secretary — but neither she nor any other senior figure in the administration is a progressive with enough independent stature to play that kind of role.

What explains Mr. Obama’s consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is? Does he fear that his enemies would use any support for progressive people or ideas as an excuse to denounce him as a left-wing extremist? Well, as you may have noticed, they don’t need such excuses: He’s been portrayed as a socialist because he enacted Mitt Romney’s health-care plan, as a virulent foe of business because he’s been known to mention that corporations sometimes behave badly.

The point is that Mr. Obama’s attempts to avoid confrontation have been counterproductive. His opponents remain filled with a passionate intensity, while his supporters, having received no respect, lack all conviction. And in a midterm election, where turnout is crucial, the “enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats could spell catastrophe...

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30krugman.html

[Radical Activist]

105. Krugman is confusing himself with all progressives.

He doesn't represent the movement. He needs to check his ego. And claiming Linda Solis isn't progressive is a deceptive insult that damages his own credibility.
It's a shame that some progressives don't question what they read when it comes from our own side.

[G_j]

110. now

that's funny

[laughingliberal]

111. Perhaps. He is a little to the center of many of us. But he's a lot more progressive than Obama's...

economic team.

[ClarkUSA]

115. How so? Please give specific examples and include Elizabeth Warren into the Treasury mix.

[laughingliberal]

126. Elizabeth Warren is a champion of the people who has been appointed to a position and it remains...

to be seen how much sway she will hold over the administration. Summers and Geithner have driven far more policy than Romer (who was a pinch to the left of them) or Volcker (also a pinch to the left).Goolsbee (center to right of center) just got appointed to replace Romer. Obama renominated Ben Bernanke (Mr. Austerity, himself and a Bush holdover) to head up the Fed. The administration opposed the deep audit of the Fed.

The administration has sided with 'bidness' and Wall Street far more than they have with the victims of 'bidness' and Wall Street. Geithner, when confronted by Warren over the fact that HAMP failed to help homeowners, essentially shrugged his shoulders. He has recently admitted it was aimed more at helping the financial institutions than the homeowners and has said there are no plans at this time to change that.

Obama sided with Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg (worst of the deficit hawks) and created the deficit commission that seems poised to recommend cuts to SS and Medicare. He has committed to opposing privatization of SS but has passed on opportunities to say he will oppose benefit cuts.

[ClarkUSA]

235. No, it doesn't "remain to be seen". Warren moved to simplifly mortgage disclosures yesterday.

<< The administration has sided with 'bidness' and Wall Street far more than they have with the victims of 'bidness' and Wall Street. >>

<< Obama sided with Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg (worst of the deficit hawks) and created the deficit commission that seems poised to recommend cuts to SS and Medicare. >>

Do you have credibly-sourced proof for any of your claims (much less the above two) or are you just full of negative opinions about the President? So far, I have only seen the latter.

[RaleighNCDUer]

304. Actually, she started the process of taking action to simplify mortgage

disclosures.

You can't claim to have run the Boston Marathon a hundred yards in.

[ClarkUSA]

320. And? Funny how the same people who championed her are now her biggest doubters, as if she's a dupe

It's so predictable. It's obvious that the Perpetually Outraged Over Elizabeth Warren have transformed overnight into the Perpetually Doubtful About Elizabeth Warren in order to avoid eating crow.

CAW CAW

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

340. No, it's simply too soon to know if she has full autonomy in running things

or if she's going to be answerable to Geitner.

She's a great choice with a chance to do good, but it is not a done deal yet. You can't judge her on the results on her first day in the fucking job.

[ClarkUSA]

355. CAW CAW

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

397. ??

Is that supposed to mean something?

[displacedvermoter]

347. He wanted to appoint the toad Gregg to be Sec of Commerce

for heavens sake! That constitutes "siding with" to me!

Again, does anything this Adminsitration does bother you?

Displaced

[ClarkUSA]

356. Don't you realize that Gregg would've had to follow Pres. Obama's orders, not the other way around?

That's probably why Gregg turned tail and ran. He couldn't bring himself to be under President Obama's thumb. There was also some talk about Gregg playing a bait-and-switch with the administration. There is no love lost between Gregg and the WH, as a result.

[displacedvermoter]

396. Why did he want to appoint such a POS in the 1st place?

More strategy?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

117. Do you have any evidence that backs up any your ugly rhetoric? Don't hide behind Krugman, either.

Because he said nothing that compares to what you just said:

"the administration still keeps on stirring the pot suggests to me a contempt in their senior ranks- likely held by the president himself, that's become politically pathological"

"they actually DO want to lose Congress because they believe it improves their reelection chances and provides cover for their failure to effectively solve problems"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9178552

:tinfoilhat:

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

136. So the Obamas' fundraising and campaigning is all a sham designed to bring about a GOP majority, eh?

Wow, just wow. :tinfoilhat:

[laughingliberal]

138. I don't know.

What I do know is it's not smart for your communication director to concede you may lose the House months before the election. I also don't see it as smart to insult constituencies you need to vote for you. If their intent is to retain Democratic majorities, they've shown an astounding lack of foresight.

It's hard to imagine a bunch of guys who ran such a brilliant Presidential campaign were suddenly struck with a case of rookie mistakes but I guess it's possible.

typos R me

[Name removed]

134. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

119. Predictable dynamic

is Democrats becoming demoralized after two years of every progressive accomplishment by Obama being ignored or belittled. I'm not surprised that the most cynical, counterproductive pundits are looking for someone else to blame, and they pick their usual target: Obama. Defeatist cynicism kills movements and they're destroying the best opportunity the progressive movement has had in two generations.

[depakid]

123. The Democratic leadership has done it to themselves

and given their actions, omissions and ill considered public statements (Remember how banksters were like baseball players who didn't win the world series?) it's been perfectly foreseeable that key constituencies wouldn't respond "favorably" -much less go out and volunteer and help GOTV.

A lot of people have been warning about this EVERY TIME this sort of deal came up over the last 20 months (and damn, it's come up a LOT more than even I expected).

See, e.g. the politics of disappointment- which I've posted myself here numerous times during that period. It's a descriptive piece that accurately reflected what I and others saw on the ground at the time:

Think about 1994.

Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome.

Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

*Note the date of the piece.

[Radical Activist]

129. And you've done your best to make 1994 come about

by constantly repeating the Green talking points about nothing being good enough and posting every article that feeds the narrative. I agree that Democrats would be in a better political position if more progressive legislation had passed the Senate, but I'm not going to join you in dishonestly minimizing the significance of what has been done. And I'm not going to let the Senate off the hook by pretending that Obama is the only elected official in DC.

By you're own logic, if you really wanted Democrats to win in November, then you would be talking up what has already been accomplished AND be asking for more. But I haven't seen you do that. I've only seen you advance a narrative, that by your own admission, will help defeat Democrats.

[depakid]

139. LOL- blame and insult the observer & messenger!

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

As if or any other blogger or member of the derided "professional left" has the sort of power to create the socio-politcal dynamic at play here.

David Sirota called out that lame talking point yesterday:

The idea that, say, Glenn Greenwald or Jane Hamsher or Bill McKibben or Rachel Maddow or me or anyone else slandered as the “Professional Left” is somehow responsible for public opinion trends among the national Democratic electorate - and the White House, the Democratic Party and others are not - is, to put it mildly, quite preposterous. Sure, it’s nice to imagine a world where principled progressive voices have as much or more public opinion power than the President of the United States and one of the two major political parties (not to mention their big corporate backers), but, alas, that’s not the world we live in.

That said, even if you believe otherwise - even if you, in fact, believe that a handful of progressive activists and media voices are responsible for the enthusiasm gap - we should all be able to agree that the White House is exacerbating that enthusiasm gap by telling Democratic voters that its demands for promises to be fulfilled are unacceptable.

Sirota goes further, and since I think it's salient to this thread (as well as to your accusations) so I'll post it:

...the president campaigned on the public option and as president cited it as one of his three foundational principles for real health care reform. Let’s also remember that the White House quietly negotiated away the public option and cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry to weaken the health care bill. Let’s remember, too, that the White House openly fought progressive efforts to seriously reform the Federal Reserve bank - one of the key actors in the market meltdown. The president also abandoned the cause of the Employee Free Choice Act, and, of course, didn’t just fail to achieve “world peace,” he massively escalated the Afghanistan war.

It would be one thing if the president acknowledged all of those verifiable facts - and offered some sort of explanation, however tortured. At least then, there would be some narrative telling Democratic voters why all of this (supposedly) had to happen, and why we should continue to believe Democrats will, eventually, fight the good fight. In other words, there would at least be a story that might attempt to counter the enthusiasm gap and build a case for voters to go out and vote Democratic in November.

Instead, the president has decided to not even acknowledge the legitimacy of Democratic voters’ expectations - many of which he himself asked us embrace in his “real change”-themed campaign for the presidency. That’s right, just as White House press secretary Robert Gates attacked the “Professional Left” a few weeks ago, the president has decided to make fun of Democratic voters who dare expect him to fight for the policies he promised.

(snip)

More: http://www.indypendent.org/2010/09/21/the-progressive-enthusiasm-gap/

[Radical Activist]

142. Why does Sirota bother writing if he has no influence on anybody?

Logic fail.
He obviously believes that he and other pundits influence the public or else he wouldn't keep writing.

So you and Sirota are still happy being manipulated by a pharma lobbyist? Because that's still the only named source for the "verifiable" fact that Obama traded away the public option in a secret deal to a lobbyist. Even that lobbyist denied it when under oath testifying before Congress.
The much more obvious reality is that conservative Senate Democrats were not going to let the PO pass even under intense public pressure, so Obama got the best bill he could. But I know that interpretation of events doesn't help stir the pot against Obama so it will be ignored.

[depakid]

147. The logic fail is all yours- i.e. you create a false analogy

because you know well that the administration and the Congressional (particularly Senate) leaders set public policy and frame public debate far greater qualitative and have quantitative effects on the mood nd opinions of the electorate at large- and/or among key constituencies.

As to the once Schrödinger's and now dead cat of a public option- the President could have gotten it done and yet went strangely silent, dropping the matter like a hot potato (with the administration denying that it had ever even been a promise).

That's the key point. Whether there was a backroom deal on this particular matter- as there undeniably was in others is irrelevant when it comes to public perception.

Unfortunately, dumping the popular surcharge on the wealthy and endorsing the unpopular and irrational tax on (union members') benefits was VERY relevant- and came at around the same time (hence- the loss of Massachusetts' Senate seat).

We warned you about that, too while it was being floated.

[carolinayellowdog]

222. the logic fail is also a false dichotomy

There is a vast space between "responsible for public opinion trends" and "no influence on anybody." Sirota like every other progressive blogger falls somewhere in that vast space, which is ignored for the sake of an intellectually dishonest "rebuttal."

[Radical Activist]

145. I blame the spin and distortion.

Big difference.

[KoKo]

185. That's an interesting read....in many ways.

Thanks for posting it.

[laughingliberal]

107. Heck, I told them a year ago July that insulting & demoralizing the left would suppress...

Democratic turnout in November 2010. The fact they not only continued but escalated has me wondering if smaller majorities aren't more in keeping with what they want.

[depakid]

140. Yep- you were among the many of us who did

I recall shaking my head at the fact that single payer advocates had to threaten a dig demonstration to even get into the White House for a perfunctory meeting!

Reckoned that didn't portend well for other progressive issue oriented groups down the line.

[ClarkUSA]

149. You're wrong. A huge majority of self-described liberals strongly support this President.

Historically, the party in power nearly always loses seats during the midterms. An enthusiasm gap is normal. I'm surprised you don't know this.

[ibegurpard]

151. well then you can shut up about liberal angst contributing to Democratic losses

since all we're witnessing is the normal midterm enthusiasm gap.
Which is it?

[ClarkUSA]

156. Um, when did I ever say that? Quote? nt

[laughingliberal]

155. Another reason you want to keep all your constituencies on board for midterms if you're the party in

Recognizing an enthusiasm gap is normal under these circumstances is one thing. Working to increase it is a bit odd.

[ClarkUSA]

157. You're making another false claim.

<< Working to increase it is a bit odd. >>

This is another flight of false fancy on your part. All recent polls prove you wrong. The Democratic enthusiasm gap has decreased during the time that President Obama has begun post-Labor Day campaigning and the generic ballot polls have closed the gap dramatically to become even from 9 points down (see latest Gallup polls).

[laughingliberal]

159. Labor Day isn't that far in the past. I've been speaking of a problem with messaging for over a year

I hope it does help us keep the majorities in the House, particularly, and the Senate (for all the good it's done us). I just wish they'd been working with an eye towards it all along and not having to scramble right here at crunch time. I have not, apparently, been alone in my 'flight of fancy.' Here's a story from July where the House leaders met with Obama and expressed their consternation over Gibbs conceding the House (nice of him to take care of that for them, huh?) and their perceived lack of support for their reelection efforts:

<snip> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer were among those in the Oval Office meeting. The aide, who was briefed on the meeting, spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversation was private.

<snip>The meeting came as congressional Democrats, fearing disaster in the fall elections, have expressed frustration with the Obama team and its efforts to help Democrats. They also were angered when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said over the weekend that enough seats were in play for Democrats to lose the House.

<snip> Obama was told of the concerns of rank-and-file lawmakers, some of whom think the president hasn't been doing enough to use his bully pulpit on their behalf, considering that they are all up for re-election in November, the aide said. Obama won't face voters again until 2012. <snip>

<snip> Congressional Democrats have pushed Obama's circle to do more. Many fret that the White House is ineffective in using the heft of the presidency to help elect Democrats to statehouses, the House and Senate. In private, several Democrats said they worry Obama's team is more focused on its own 2012 re-election bid than the midterm elections that would shape the final two years of the president's first term.<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/obama-house-democrats-help_n_646937.html

Seems a lot of Congressional Democrats were engaged in the same 'flights of fancy.' I'm glad Obama responded to their concerns and I hope it will be enough. I really don't want to see the House go down. That is the body which has, actually, passed decent, progressive legislation.

[ClarkUSA]

271. The present is much more relevant since we're talking about the midterms, doncha think?

I am constantly bemused at how many anonymous bloggers think they know how to do "messaging" better than the man and his team who won the presidency against all odds with the biggest margin of victory since LBJ.

:eyes:

And you haven't commented on the poll data I gave you which completely refutes your meme.

BTW, I discount everything from the anti-Democratic Party/anti-Obama Republican-owned HuffPo. They are no better than Breitbart and Politico.

[laughingliberal]

390. I believe I've indicated I am happy with his current efforts to keep the House. I do wish he'd

started sooner and it wasn't such a squeaker right here down to the wire. The fact that Obama's team did do such a stellar job on their campaign is part of the reason their missteps have seemed so odd.

Easy enough to declare you're right about everything if you decide every source that disagrees with you is unacceptable but it's not really honest debate. Huffington Post was not the only source for the story about the Congress having a 'flight of fancy.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010522-503544.html

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Tuesday walked back earlier statements that Republicans could "no doubt" win control of the House this November, but that wasn't enough to placate House Democrats angry about the remarks.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats took aim at the White House in a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, according to reports, arguing that Gibbs' comments will hurt the party's campaign efforts in an already-challenging midterm election year. <snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38252440/

WASHINGTON — Facing criticism from House Democrats, President Barack Obama promised their leaders Wednesday night that he'll actively support their agenda and Democratic lawmakers as they head into tough midterm elections this fall, according to a congressional leadership aide.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer were among those in the Oval Office meeting. The aide, who was briefed on the meeting, spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversation was private.
The meeting came as congressional Democrats, fearing disaster in the fall elections, have expressed frustration with the Obama team and its efforts to help Democrats. They also were angered when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said over the weekend that enough seats were in play for Democrats to lose the House.
House, Senate wounds reopened by Gibbs remark
Obama was told of the concerns of rank-and-file lawmakers, some of whom think the president hasn't been doing enough to use his bully pulpit on their behalf, considering that they are all up for re-election in November, the aide said. Obama won't face voters again until 2012.

[RaleighNCDUer]

309. "Self described liberals" are not necessarily liberal

any more than many "self identified Christians" practice anything resembling Christianity.

You get a neo-lib imperialist, all in favor of foreign wars and coercive capitalism, who happens to back gay rights, and he may be a "self-described liberal" because of the gay rights issue.

But we know better.

[eilen]

210. And every time we were answered

"would you prefer President Palin?"

It's me or the monster argument to shut people up.

To which we would say yah, we get it. But hell, is that really the bar the admin is shooting for? The "We suck less" bar?

[DirkGently]

265. Isn't it clear by now that dismissing the left is exactly where the "enthusiasm gap" comes from?

[ClarkUSA]

275. Because you say so? lol! Funny how recent polls show the gap narrowing...

... and the generic ballot pulling even ever since President Obama started campaigning after Labor Day. Your meme is false.

[DirkGently]

281. I see. You demand strict proof, but offer none to show critique hurts the party? Convenient.

[ClarkUSA]

286. I never said that. You have a never ending supply of strawman arguments, doncha? Convenient.

:nopity:

[DirkGently]

287. Then simply prove that the critique you're attacking hurts the party.

[ClarkUSA]

292. Why should I? That's your bailiwick, not mine.

:tinfoilhat:

[DirkGently]

294. Proof is not your "bailiwick?" Then I assume you'll stop demanding it from others.

[ClarkUSA]

300. Again w/the strawman argument. Stop huffing all because I proved your false meme wrong, Dirk Gently

Your false meme: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9180944

Proof you're wrong: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9181107

:)

[DirkGently]

302. So, the enthusiasm gap is closing because you refuse to acknowledge any valid critique of Obama?

Edit: :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

310. That's your fourth strawman argument in this subthread alone. Just sayin'.

Keep it up. You amuse me.

:)

[DirkGently]

341. Just asking questions. Did you ever think of a critique of the President you find "legitimate?"

[ClarkUSA]

363. lol! Giving up on the strawman strategy now that I exposed it? I shot down your false meme, too.

Just sayin'.

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

368. i don't think "strawman" means what you think it means

[ClarkUSA]

371. Really? Then why don't you tell me what you "think" I "think" it means?

:eyes:

[DirkGently]

373. I'm concerned you may think it's a way to not name an Obama critique you agree with.

[ClarkUSA]

375. I wasn't replying to you. Are you stalking me? You're a bit of a broken record.

:shrug:

[DirkGently]

369. Well you're certainly doing well. In celebration, can you discuss an Obama critique you agree with?

[ClarkUSA]

374. Couldn't have done it w/o you. False memes & litmus tests disguised as "questions" are no-brainers.

:smoke:

[DirkGently]

377. The devastating Emoticons are your real secret. And not naming an Obama critique you'd agree with.

[ClarkUSA]

379. lol! False memes, strawman arguments, purity litmus tests... it's all so predictable.

Keep digging.

:D

[DirkGently]

383. Sure, one of those must excuse you from answering an honest question. Or making an argument.

[ClarkUSA]

395. Au contraire. I need no "excuse" to eschew serious dialogue with anyone who embraces perfidy.

[ClarkUSA]

130. +1

Krugman's track record precludes any such presumption of self-awareness.

[Forkboy]

133. We all defer to your knowledge on how to get out the vote.

[Forkboy]

132. Was anybody here doing the same?

[unkachuck]

109. K&R....n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

125. Everybody knows that donkeys don't respond to dog whistles.

It's part of what makes us who we are. We are skeptical of the talk.

RWingers don't care as long as somebody keeps preaching. RepubliCon control gave them very few of the things they thought they were voting for, in fact just the opposite.
Limited government? Not at all, they got the Patriot Act. Twice.
Reduced spending? Never. Budgets burgeon.
End of legal abortions? :rofl:
Lower taxes? Okay. There is that. Especially if you've got a ton of money.

But really, at the end of the day ...

[kenny blankenship]

137. As has been said by others & now Krugman, Obama was elected as a leader of a lib MOVEMENT

that was how he was packaged, and even those not part of that movement - people who were not manning the liberal barricades after Bushler stole the office but became disenchanted with Republicans - understood that he was supposedly as FAR AWAY FROM Bush as it was possible to get. How did the MSM bill him? Oh yes, "The Most Liberal Member of the US Senate" - a liberal in neon lights. Yet the people, in their anger against Bush and the endless parade of GOP big money sleaze, elected him and not by a squeaker, either. A generational chapter of US political history was over and a new day dawned. The one person who didn't get this was Barack Obama.

Obama didn't want to be "movement" liberal President like an FDR. He wanted to refloat the criminal banks with YOUR future earnings, and your grandkids' future earnings, and just send the banksters back on their way with a pat on the head. He wanted to get right back to the old Reagan consensus - as Krugman notes, Obama goes way out of his way to scorn liberals to establish his country club cred. And that was just fucking stupid. Not only did the national situation DEMAND radical change that Obama actually has no taste for, but the political momentum and mandate he had on taking office was pissed away with breathtaking speed, and he is no longer trusted by his most important allies, "the little people" who had stuck by the Democratic Party during the dark years of terror under Bushler, when it looked quite as though the Democratic Party might fold and disappear altogether. They have felt the sting of his elitist contempt again and again. Now they are the only ones he could turn to for strength as the tide turns against him and the Party, but where was HE when they needed him?

[EFerrari]

144. It's not like no one has tried to convey this to the Obama White House.

It's downright self-destructive, not matter how you feel or what you think about them as a working group.

[ibegurpard]

148. How many more columns like this before Krugman attains Hamsher status on DU?

will be interesting to watch

[ClarkUSA]

152. Please don't insult Krugman like that.

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

161. Oh, Krugman has been under the bus a few times. Kind of depends on the day & what he's saying. nt

[Lyric]

259. Kinda like KO and Maddow.

We only love them when they're telling us what we want to hear.

[DirkGently]

283. Who's not on the Enemies List at this point? Silent Bob, perhaps?

[McCamy Taylor]

150. There is an almost compulsive aspect to the way the MSM plays divide and conquer with Dems.

The corporate media determines what becomes news. If Obama lays into the Banksters, we hear less than nada. If he says something about the left, it is all over the press.

We need to stop letting the MSM lead us around by our noses. Just because they want to talk about it ad naseum does not make it important news.

Seriously, Krugman ought to be too old and wise to fall for GOP divide and conquer games. There is no way that Obama would deliberately try to alienate the base. The press has been setting up these little battles---and the GOP gloats to see Dems warring among themselves. It is all a fiction, like wag the dog. Smoke and mirrors. We see what they want us to see.

[Ramulux]

154. Krugman is right as usual

I support Obama, I think hes done good things, I will volunteer, and I will vote a straight Dem ticket in November. However none of that changes the fact that Obama has been going after those on the left who criticize him in a childish and ignorant manner. He claims we are upset for reasons we were never upset about and seems to give a speech where he laughs at us for not being totally enthusiastic on a weekly basis. Obama really needs to give it a rest with the base bashing, its not smart, and it will hurt us this November.

[earcandle]

160. he is only refreshing when he leaks a truth now and again.....but a steady dose isn't expected.

[CreekDog]

164. that's exactly how it feels

and even if Obama himself didn't do this...he has put people in charge that are completely to do anything else but this.

i mean, is a Geitner going to dream up groundbreaking change for the economy?
is Bernanke going to be able to think of extraordinary moves to help the economy?

ironically enough, one of the most creative and effective advocates has been Ray LaHood for mass transit...

but Obama's first tier is filled with people who ooze inertia...there are exceptions but on the economy...inertia, status quo seeming inability to think big.

[FlyByNight]

165. K & R

"...Yelling at the base won’t get them up and going; a little respect might." Hear. Hear.

[vssmith]

166. All I ask of Obama is to welcome their hatred, as did FDR

[peace frog]

178. Never happen

but one can dream. If only we had an FDR in Obama, what could not be achieved.

[veganlush]

174. yes....true..n/t

[Panaconda]

179. Time to stand up and face the facts

The Obama administration is a conservative administration. Only the mood music has been changed.

[Vinca]

184. So I've learned something new . . . I'm a DFH.

Actually, one of the original DFHs, having been in my heydey at the height of flower power. Sigh. We need more flowers.

[Le Taz Hot]

190. Shout out to a fellow DFH

from "back in the day." :hi:

[sammyscout]

188. ALthough it seems that President Obama is chinging

I would like to see Obama the Liberal/Progressive/attack dog now that the last year of his administraton, and not just on the campaign trail. He should've ploughed theough Elizabeth Warren's nomination, shoved through the Health care bill with a Public Option like it was the Patriotic Act.

I have to agree with Krugman

[xchrom]

189. recommend

[geek tragedy]

192. Do dog whistles work for the left?

It seems when he does use language the left would like, it gets written off as a corporatist wolf in sheep's verbiage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

315. The difference is, rhe REAL left, the REAL liberals are convinced only

by actions, not by talk.

And the more the actions contrast with the talk, the more upset we get.

[Enthusiast]

202. K&R! What a wonderful article!

This lack of enthusiasm could have easily been prevented.

And President Obama did, in fact, ride into office on a wave of progressive enthusiasm.

[myrna minx]

211. K&R n/t

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

218. Do you

accept Krugman's overall point:

Just to be clear: I’m not saying that it would be right or justified for progressives to take their ball and go home. Obama has brought real change — above all, health reform, imperfect as it is (and if it survives). But yelling at the base won’t get them up and going; a little respect might.

It's interesting to watch people latch onto the "we're victims" point of Krugman's message, while completely ignoring his overall point.

[ClarkUSA]

278. Yes, Krugman thinks HCR is "real change". Funny how his fans here keep ignoring that part.

To reiterate, here's Krugman's support for HCR as "real change":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9180151

From the NYT: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/the-anti-dog-whistler

Cognitive dissonance is so interesting to observe, isn't it?

[defendandprotect]

219. Neither did Bush take on a "team" of Michael Moore's, Robert Redford's ...or other liberal/

progressives -- Krugman -- Howard Dean -- etal

Yet, that's exactly what Obama did in putting Wall Street and other right wing

corporates on his team!

Not to mention putting the DLC corporate wing of the Democratic Party in the White House!

Nor Obama's over-solicitous care and concern for the positions of Republicans ....

and PUTTING REPUBLICANS LIKE ALAN SIMPSON IN CHARGE OF THE CAT FOOD COMMISSION --

and other corporates in charge of government programs!

This new guy at the powerful OMB is an ex-Citicorp executive????

Did we really elect Obama so that he could turn government affairs over to Republicans

and corporates?

[Lorien]

233. Yep. He not only appears to have contempt for his base

but for Democrats in general. It's amazing how his acolytes, who scream "but you MUST swallow it and vote for Democrats!" don't seem to notice that Obama isn't putting much of his trust in Democrats either. Just why is he so eager to play with the other team?

[defendandprotect]

246. Great points . . . . !!!

and "hello" -- :)

I can't go anywhere until all Dems wake up -- I don't see anything but that we have to

vote Dem -- I'd like to see us keep blasting thru to a real liberal/progressive takeover

of the Dem Party. Right now, few corporates seem to be controlling it!

[LoZoccolo]

237. "Professional left" was directed at people equating Democrats and Republicans

who showed a deep disrespect first with their disingenuous and manipulatve hyperbole. Gibbs' statement was a criticism of people trying to alienate other people from the president.

[defendandprotect]

247. What's "disingenuous" is a Democratic president putting Repugs in charge of government ....

Alan Simpson at Cat Food Commission with a bunch of other right wing Repugs --

is that really waht you voted for?

DLC corporate wing of Dem Party in White House -- is that what you voted for?

MOCKING the need for universal health care vs the PRIVATIZED system that Obama/Rahm

have kept in place for health care industry!! MOCKING HEALTH CARE NEEDS?

And you expect that to play here or among any Democrats?

Every other nation has universal health care for its citizens - but Obama finds that laughable!!???

And many here don't find it shocking???!!!

Wow --

[Techn0Girl]

364. Very well said .....

Hopefully, November will be the wake up call for everyone.

[defendandprotect]

385. Don't know what you're thinking about November . . .

but, I'm thinking we have to blast thru to the left --

and knock out as many Repugs as possible --

Unless something even more shocking happens that's the way I think I'll be looking at it --

Flood Obama with so many Democrats that there would be no room for excuses or alibis????

We would have at least knocked out more Repugs ?????

From there it might be easier to regain control of the Democratic Party from the corporatists???

But we either have to regain control of the Democratic party or work on recreating it OUTSIDE

of the Democratic Party???

What are you thinking?

[MissDeeds]

367. Could not agree more n/t

[defendandprotect]

386. Don't know what you're thinking about November, either .....

if you don't see the post it's here --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9184673

[DirkGently]

290. If some critics were wrong, first acknowledge those who are right, eh? Came off weak and defensive.

As it does, over and over again, in this forum.

[RaleighNCDUer]

317. Funny, when Democrats ACT like Republicans, I think it is incumbent

upon a responsible press to mention it.

And when lefty pundits mention it, perhaps the purpose is to let TPTB know that THEY are separating themselves from the people who put them in office, and if they want to stay in office they should look to mending their fences.

No matter how many overtures Obama & the DLC make to the Republicans, they will NOT vote for them.

[Hestia]

244. Rahm...nothing else to say

[budkin]

263. Could not agree more here... tired of being taken for granted by this administration

[guruoo]

282. Conclusion: Needs more dog whistle.

[Rex]

284. This all stems from the Obama Whitehouse not being able to admit to some DFHs

they were RIGHT about EVERYTHING they said, for DECADES. Oh and getting called out for being a corporate puppet. Besides that, Obama is doing great!

[ClarkUSA]

288. It's great to see so many recs for Krugman since he states that HCR is indeed "real change"

For all you defenders of Krugman, please do read Krugman's own learned words (after all, he is a prize-winning economist) stating HCR is "real change" which I'm sure you will take to heart as much as his "anti-dog whistle" opinion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9176531&mesg_id=9180151

From NYT: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/the-anti-dog-whistler

:kick:

[DirkGently]

293. Some people have nuanced opinions and don't "pick a side." We call that "good faith."

[ClarkUSA]

313. Why are you putting "pick a side" in parentheses when I didn't say that? Strawman argument again?

:eyes:

[DirkGently]

343. Those are quotation marks. They imply Krugman's praise for Obama doesn't undermine his critique.

[ClarkUSA]

357. No, "they" don't; "quotation marks... imply" the previous poster said the phrase.

[DirkGently]

370. Trust me. In this post, they meant Krugman's previous praise doesn't invalidate his criticism.

[ClarkUSA]

376. "Trust me." Ah, therein lies the rub.

Oh, and "Krugman's praise" for HCR is current, not "previous" which shows me how well you read Krugman's complete op-ed.

[DirkGently]

378. Fiendishly irrelevant.

[ClarkUSA]

380. Yes, the OP is. Because most self-described liberals have always strongly approved of Pres. Obama.

And they still do. :)

[ihavenobias]

289. K & R n/t

[placton]

298. picks up ball, goes home

sick of what my party has become

[DirkGently]

308. Stay. Fight. Send partisan hackery home. It's your Party, not theirs.

[Jakes Progress]

316. There was a great line on "West Wing"

One of the president's men, Sam, was enlisted to speak to a group of union members when leading up to an election. Sam protested, saying that that was like preaching to the choir. Toby, the real campaigner, told him, "That's how you get the choir to sing."

Instead of getting us to sing, we've been told to sit down and shut up.

[BrklynLiberal]

326. sad but sadly true

Obama, however, seems to go out of his way to convey the message that although he rode to office on a wave of progressive enthusiasm, he and his people don’t respect the people who got him where he is.

This morning I heard it being said that the chances are that Summers will be replaced by someone from the Corporate/Financial world.
Oh goody. But it will be a woman..so that makes it more acceptable...

No matter what he does, Wall Street and the repukes will hate Obama..so he might be better off, as would we all, if the aim became to satisfy, to any extent, the base that got him into the White House in the first place.

They White House..and Dems in Congress are assuming that we will vote Democratic no matter what...which may be the case. We may still vote D, but the repukes will still be getting what THEY want!!! The D majority in Congress has provided us with no more than we had when we were in the minority. Leadership, REAL leadership..courageous decisions, the taking of STRONG and principled stands, daring and progressive ideas...especially from the White House. What would they cost us that we have not already lost?

specifically..


generally...

[Name removed]

338. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

359. Yeah, sure.

<< both sides are really on the same team >>

What does this mean, exactly?

[hulka38]

339. At this point we know the respect wouldn't be genuine

only a means to an end.

[katty]

342. yes, it's an OCD-Obsessive Compulsive Disorder of alienation

behavior and the practice of separatism.

[DirkGently]

346. I never believed the Republicans prospered by admitting no wrong. Someone's advising Obama otherwise

[creon]

361. not enough

There are not enough progressives to form a working majority in this country. That means that progressives will not have a majority in the either the HoR or the Senate. The WH is fully aware of that. The votes are not there. No politician is ever going to tell his base that a working majority will no occur. That includes Obama.



I think that Krugman is mostly right on the economy; and, his economic ideas have the best chance of good results. But, his pov is a minority pov; he is a heterodox economist. Most economists do not actually have any good solutions. The economy will have to repair itself.


Krugman is right the relationship that Obama has with his base. It is quite equivocal. That situation will not change.

Progressives will have to find the means to build a working majority.

[AtomicKitten]

398. Krugman is confusing those that "held their nose" for supporters. nt