You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #122: a chronic and fatal error [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
122. a chronic and fatal error
Edited on Sun Apr-27-08 03:12 AM by Two Americas
Over the last 30 years there has been a growing trend in liberal activism - a desire to be "right" at the expense of being effective, and it has reached a climax in the Obama candidacy. Those of us Democrats who have not fallen under the spell of Obama's personality can not point out his weaknesses - not because we are incorrect about them, but because, as the Obama supporters will scream at us, they should not be weaknesses: that it is wrong that they are weaknesses. They don't really care whether or not he has weaknesses, nor do they care if we lose in November. They argue that we should be able to win, not that we can, and have already accepted a toss up in the general and a possible loss to McCain and are already working on their post-election "reasons" and excuses for the loss - the people are stupid, the people are racists, the Republicans cheated, America sucks, Clinton did it.

Being "right" is the consolation prize in politics, and I for one am tired of settling for that.

Democrats should know that placing one individual of color into one position of power is not a litmus test of racism, or we would all be praising and celebrating the careers of Rice and Thomas.

The same demographic that rejected Gore and Kerry is now rejecting Obama, and for the same reasons and to about the same degree. They are rejecting our elitist appearing, arrogant, intellectual, professorial types. (God let's not get into an argument about who really is and who really isn't an elitist, or scream that it "shouldn't" matter.) Is that shallow? Sure, but we select these guys for those superficial qualities - we relate to that style - and are in-your-face about it ("fuck 'em!" Obama supporters say), so we can't really complain when the voters reject them for the same superficial reasons, can we? We don't give them any other solid or comprehensible alternative as a basis for voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC