Why cant we give Obama's Choices a chance to work before we revolt?

[Hellataz]

I know everyone is free to express their opinions and disagreements with Obama and his choices, but to me it seems a bit premature to protest all his choices for staff or event speakers because we've disliked what they did in the past. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe those same choices, under Obama's wing might handle things differently? Can we not trust that while we may not care for certain people in his cabinet or who he wants to surround himself with, that in the end, it's Obama that is running the ship. You need to think of these choices more like instruments, in the wrong hand, like Bush they can do damage and fuck shit up, but in Obama's hands maybe they can bring change and help unite this country.

I go back to the "Team of Rivals" book. Obama's obsessed with this idea, so is it really a surprise that he would choose people that don't agree with him on certain issues to be around him? That's how he planned his entire term in office. He wants to be open to ALL ideas, not just his or ours, but AMERICA as a whole. He wants to be inclusive, that included republicans, evangelicals and even hate mongers. Maybe he knows something most of us don't, that reaching out to these people isn't necessarily going to change HIS way of thinking to their ideas, but actually change THEIR way of thinking towards something more like ours.

It seems to me that so many of the negative posts about Obama are posted out of fear that he will flip to the "other side" just because he associates with a few of them. But is that really fair to Obama? Aren't you just saying that he's not strong enough to retain his own opinions and ideas? I for one, believe that Obama is very strong willed and is passionate about keeping his promises to the Left. I don't fear that Obama will catch a case of "conservatism" or "right wing extremism" simply by talking to people that engage in said practices. He's just associating with them to better understand them and thus help them understand our ideas and opinions. Ultimately this will lead to a more united and tolerant America.

You are of course free to disagree with me, but please, I only ask that you do so with some civility. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong with my theory, it's just what i believe given all that I've seen and read about Obama.

[scarletwoman]

1. Maybe because way too many of his choices are revolting? (nt)

[Skittles]

2. same reason we didn't do the same with bush's choices

[Hellataz]

4. But he's not Bush, he's no where close to believing in the same things

Why can't you just have faith that Obama can stay faithful to the left while granting an audience to the right?

[Skittles]

5. we don't goose step just because it is a dem president

we are not freepers - we are not stupid enough to have faith in politicians

[Hellataz]

10. No one said goose step, but Obama is a far cry from Bush

it's not a stretch to ask that we give him more leeway in his choices and see what effect they have on us before we start protesting.

[Skittles]

12. how about we allow legitimate criticism on a POLITICAL BOARD

how about THAT

[Hellataz]

47. How about if you are given such an allowance, then so are others that disagree with you

and want to question the "legitimacy" of your criticism?
How about that?

[Skittles]

53. they're not "disagreeing"

they are WHINING ABOUT IT

[matcom]

81. this is no longer a "Political Board"

there aren't enough people here who know anything about Politics.

[stillcool]

96. but a lot of the criticism is 'goose step'..

I would think people could have knowledgeable criticism, wherein someone reads up about more than a snap shot of a person's life before they pass judgment on it. The other thing is..the idea that someone who is a career government worker is tainted, and that experience and knowledge is not kosher. The Kevin Bacon syndrome. And then there is the part where people are so eager to judge a person according to one article, written by someone they don't know. Even the most trusted sources have agendas. I don't think it's an issue of trust in politicians, but one of blind disapproval.

[Runcible Spoon]

11. faith is for religion...healthy skepticism and caution is for politcs

I fear for people who have faith in politicians...

[Skittles]

13. I don't fear them, they just make me sick

[Hellataz]

48. Faith is just a belief in something you have not seen yet.

I'm not religious by any means, but I can still have faith is a person's ability to do what they promised.

[Solomon]

78. Thank-you. Religion has no monopoly on faith.

I don't understand why the people here even voted, they are so cynical.

[Runcible Spoon]

88. you can keep your faith, I'll continue to have realistic expectations based on what I HAVE seen

Your attitude is scary. Information and education are your friends, don't be afraid to look outside the official propaganda and arm yourself.

[napi21]

3. I agree with you. Sometimes DU sounds like a lot of freepers, complaining about everything the new

President says or does, and he's not even the PRESIDENT yet!

We've all said we HOPE the Pubbies will give him a "honeymoon period". Don't you think WE SHOULD TOO?

[Hellataz]

8. Exactly, what happened to the honeymoon stage?

Shouldn't we all here at DU be on it with Obama? This is our victory too. Sometimes it just seems people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something. That's not to say we can't express concerns, but I haven't seen on choice of Obama's not criticized in some way here.

[Runcible Spoon]

14. you have a honeymoon with a spouse, not a goddamn politician

I swear, your word choices are creepy and don't help your OP.

[Hellataz]

38. It's an analogy and well known saying

And your words are insulting and don't help convince people that your point is correct.
Try some civility and tact.

[Runcible Spoon]

89. I don't care if you don't like my tone

the sooner you get your head out of the sand and start paying attention, the better off you will be.

[stillcool]

97. You've never heard of the 'honeymoon' phase?

has there ever been a President elected, when that phrase was not used? Is it only using the phrase in relation to the Obama Presidency that has you so rankled?

[Uzybone]

6. Many of the negative posts have never liked Obama

They cannot wait for him to fall on his ass. I hear the same thing from right wing idiots.

[Skittles]

9. what crap

[Uzybone]

18. Keep on hating

I prefer optimism.

[Runcible Spoon]

20. Oh the hate meme.

I see it has replaced "purist" for the month.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Works as well as Apologist.....

Which is what I'm called daily.

[Runcible Spoon]

90. so you're NOT an apologist?

how exactly would you like to be called when you refuse to even acknowledge that Obama may have fucked up? And please don't use that "he's not president yet" crap on me. You and I BOTH know that cabinet picks matter, as does early peeks at policy, press conferences, etc. etc. etc. Obama has not been sitting around doing nothing while Bush lameducks to previously unknown heights...

[Skittles]

26. more crap

[LostinVA]

85. Skittles wasn't an HRC supporter -- she just didn't like the bashing

[firedupdem]

27. Yeah, I've kind of figured that out. Same people outraged all at

the same time. He's walking into a shit hole and I'm not kicking the man before he's even sworn in.

[thewiseguy]

44. Yea, I never liked Obama!

For some reason I still don't know why I am keeping the freaking "Change" sign that I was holding at the stadium while he was accepting the nomination. :eyes:

[LostinVA]

84. Wrong -- many, many, MANY were staunch -- even rabid -- Obama Primary Warriors

Most Hillary supporters don't even bother with OPs anymore, or even posting in most threads except for fun ones like Yardwork's current one. You know, Yardwork, that well-known HRC supporter -- NOT.

Some of you will NEVER let the Primaries go. It's very telling in so many ways.

[Uzybone]

86. You mentioned the primaries, not I.

This has nothing to do with that IMO. I would have been perfectly happy with either of the 2. Happier now for sure, but I never had anything vs Hillary. 90+% of former Hillary supporters are solidly behind Obama.

Of the Obama haters very few are doing it because they supported Hillary. Most are either racists, professional pessimists, or lunatic fringe members. There is not much Obama can do to placate them.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Why didn't we wait to see how the Bush run-up to the Iraq ....

... catastrophe would "work" before we started to criticize that.

Progressives generally don't think that way; rightfully so.

[Skittles]

15. exactly

:thumbsup:

[Hellataz]

17. Well this progressive does given that Obama is not Bush.

And we didn't wait to criticize the war because it was WAR. And we weren't given a good reason to engage in it from the get go.
Obama has been open about surrounding himself with people he disagrees with to help him come to a more well rounded opinion, that's not the same as going to war and killing in mass over false information and greed.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. One can only *hope* he disagrees with them.

And can you furnish me with a link to a quote where he actually says that? i.e. that he's surrounding himself with people that he disagrees with?

I'd really like to sleep better tonite than I did last night.

[Hellataz]

39. Well hoping he will is better then assuming he wont, right?

As for links, I don't mean to be lazy, just not up for research right now, but I open anyone else to help me find any videos or articles where it was discussed in the media that he intends to surround himself with people he disagrees with. I just know i heard it over and over again during the campaign and on many news programs. In fact it was a whole big discussion for a week on CNN and then brought up again all over when he asked Hillary to be SOS.

[Runcible Spoon]

22. Really? Tell that to Afghanistan

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

52. Afghanistan already knows....Obama has been saying for month

there will be a change of strategy there. I'm sure they were listening.

[Runcible Spoon]

87. "change of strategy"

You sure do know how to spin spin spin

[cascadiance]

30. To get a "well rounded" set of opinions, you need MORE than just voices from the right and center...

You also need them from the progressive side of the fence that VOTED HIM IN TO OFFICE!!!

I don't think there are many here that are asking that he totally ignores the other side and only appoints people we approve of. But we need to be let in the door for some important positions to feel like we have a voice that's been stolen from us for so long.

If he wants REAL change, he should include those that are offering different solutions than those he's surrounded him with that have been giving us the FAILED status quo solutions for so long.

America spoke in the primaries when they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. They do NOT want the DLC. They do NOT want this war to continue!

I'm not getting overly critical yet, since it is true that we have to wait until he gets into office first, before seeing him execute on his plan that we can either be thankful for or criticize. But what's being telegraphed here is not good. I hope many of us are wrong here. Because I really do want Obama to do the right thing later. Just not holding my breath.

[polmaven]

76. The President Elect NEVER

ran as a far left liberal. The differences between his policies and Hillary's policies were very small.

There are MANY here who think that ANYONE from "the other side", as you put it should be disqualified.

And as far as Hillary's vote numbers...America spoke in the primaries when they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. They do NOT want the DLC. They do NOT want this war to continue!...The popular vote in the primaries was EXTREMELY close...."America" did not overwhelmingly reject Hillary Clinton, as your statement makes it sound. 18,000,000 votes is not something to ignore.

[cascadiance]

79. He ran on change. He ran against the war...

I'm not saying he was Dennis Kucinich or even John Edwards the way he was campaigning. But many of us that were supporting those other folks had hoped that his nebulous "change" campaign was going to include us.

And I take issue with being against the war being "far left". That IS a Democratic Party principle and is supported by MOST Americans! You are echoing the corporate media's spin to try and move the center to the right, when it doesn't exist on the right in the electorate, just in the campaign contributor coffers.

I DID NOT SAY that the "other side" should be "disqualified". That is NOT the point I'm trying to make here. I'm saying that those with progressive ideals should be INCLUDED, which they've not been to this point, If he doesn't, he's going against his campaign promises to bring both sides together.

When he was campaigning on bringing both sides together, it was implying that even if he was governing from aq progressive base of voters, that he'd reach out and *include* those from the far right and from the center. But in fact the oppposite is happening. He's basically acting as if his base is the right and center, and that he doesn't need to worry about including the progressive base of voters, since they haven't had a real choice and he feels he can take them for granted. Sorry, but many of us aren't going to put up with being "taken for granted" for too much longer. As more people understand that the war is a mess because of the center and the right, the economy is a mess because of the center and the right, either he will have to pay attention to us, or risk an independent bid from someone in the next election or a primary fight.

Still the fact is, Hillary lost. And Obama wouldn't have won without us (the progressives looking for someone) voting for him. He OWES us!

Yes, FDR won over many other "far left" candidates when he ran too. He ran from more of the center, but recognized that he needed to do things that would be viewed as "far left" by today's crowd in power to fix the country's ills then that are very similar to the ills we face now, and thank god he had the kahones to do that then. I'm only hoping that Obama is similarly understanding of reality that we need a NEW view of how to run things in Washington, not those of the far right and the "center" (aka the corporate serving but socially flexible segment).

[stillcool]

98. This country has never been ruled by the left...

and 'progressives' did not win the election. As a matter of fact, I spoke to no one during the entire primary, and presidential campaign that ever identified themselves as 'progressives'. As far as the 'change'..I was under the impression that was going to be a bottom up kind of thing. That obviously is not going to be happening because if you want a populace movement, you need a populace..not a holier than thou purist party, regardless of whether they call themselves progressives or conservatives. Obama will most certainly do the same old, same old, because there will be no one to pressure their own representatives to do the right thing as far as legislation. "We the people" will be too busy bickering over what the tv said that day.

[merh]

32. What a load of crap that comparison is

Bush took office in 2001, mishandled 9/11 and took advantage of raw emotions of the nation and lied about Iraq, going to war in 2003. Bush was given time after 9/11 many wanted him to do the right thing and wanted to put their faith in him, he lied all the while.

Go find some other comparison or maybe just let obama take office and set some policy that pisses you off before you bitch.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Because Bush stealing the election should have tipped some off....

I didn't have to wait for Iraq.

Obama won by 9 million votes.

It ain't the same damn thing, and you know it.

[Jennicut]

16. Because then what would DU do?

[TreasonousBastard]

31. ...

:thumbsup:

[Critters2]

19. The RW is not interested in understanding our ideas and opinions.

Nor are they interested in being tolerant. Don't believe me? Ask Rick "they're just like pedophiles" Warren.

[Hellataz]

33. You can't lump everyone into such closed off categories

Just because someone is republican or religious doesn't mean they aren't open to other ideas, maybe there aren't a lot of public examples, but I've met plenty of both that have changed their mind on issues after have civil discussions with progressives or liberals. It takes giving respect to get it in return.

[Bluebear]

23. Because he is making some revolting decisions. nt

[emilyg]

24. Because this is a discussion board and

I for one enjoy positive and negative about O. I like reading other people's points of view.

[Captain Lance Bass]

25. He's got my support

His presidency will make the far right and left irrelevant.

Obama's centrism is the nail in the coffin for Rush Limbaugh and Mike Malloy.

Time for a man of the people and not of the fringe wacko's.

Next election the Far right will lose huge chunks of base to Obama and the Dem's will be purged of Code Pink and the other dreamers who thought Obama was going to be the start of the utopian revolution.

He will get 8 years and will unite the core of the country.

He is THE man!

[Two Americas]

28. they have "a chance"

No one here can deny them "a chance."

If "give them a chance" means refrain from giving feedback, that is something that we should never do and you should not be asking people to do.

But this is not an all or nothing proposition, as you imply. It is nit a choice between saying nothing but positive things or staying silent, or else "revolting" or rejecting him. This is the give and take that is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy that you are uncomfortable with and discouraging.

The Team of Rivals does not apply here. All of Lincoln's cabinet members - all of his appointments - went to people who were clearly and outspokenly opposed to slavery. There was no "reaching out" to the pro-slavery forces, and no "listening to all points of view" that included listening to, let alone promoting or showcasing pro-slavery people.

We are justified in expecting that he would appoint people who were clearly and outspokenly opposed to the right wing and the religious right, just as Lincoln appointed people who, regardless of their party or background were all strong opponents of slavery.

Let's compare the two:

Lincoln -

Lincoln appointed people from a wide variety of backgrounds, from both parties, all of who were strong and consistent opponents of the opposition party and program.

Obama -

Obama is mostly appointing party insiders and loyalists, professional politicos, few if any of whom have been strong and consistent opponents of the opposition party and program.

Salmon Chase and William Seward were "extremists" - the most radical antislavery national politicians. Obama is playing it safe.

In a time of bitter partisan divide, Lincoln picked a side and saw the fight through. Obama is trying to have it both ways, to appease and court both sides.

What you are describing is closer to the Buchanan administration, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery people were mixed together, as Buchanan tried to heal the partisan divide, and include all voices, and tried to represent all Americans. In those sort of post-partisan mixes, entrenched power always wins because they already have the power and merely need a stalemate in order to win. That is the opposite of change.

No president should ever have the power that you are hoping he will have - to dictate his will. This is a representative democracy and a government of limited powers and shared power. No president should ever have the sort of super CEO power that you say makes these appointments OK - that they will be following his orders. You are describing a dictatorship.

[Hellataz]

34. I'm not saying he is a king or dictator at all

But the simple truth is that everyone in his cabinet will take orders from HIM, so when people bitch that they think people in his cabinet don't see eye to eye with issues Obama promised he would champion, it shouldn't matter because it's not THEM making the final call it's Obama.

It's not a dictatorship because if he didn't something illegal we could impeach him, but there's a reason the president of the united states of america is called the most powerful person in the world. And obviously Obama told us all something that made us not only vote for him, but donate and campaign for him with such passion, so why can't we believe that he will stick to his promises and not assume that he will turn his back on our concerns just because he choose to hear from ALL sides of America.

[Two Americas]

41. didn't say that you did

"Dictator" and "king" are bad words, people know better than to use them, so they don't use them. It is not the words that are bad, it is the concept of strong man rule. I said what you were describing was the way that things work in dictatorship.

I addressed the rest of your most recent post in the previous post. The president giving orders, and making the final call, is true for all presidents and is not in the least relevant to the subject of the people he is picking.

[Hellataz]

43. His authority in comparison to his staff choices is relevant

People are upset that his choices in staff or speakers does not represent THEM or their issues, but Obama has not shown us that HE himself will not champion those cause. People fear that because he choose a anti-gay rights preacher to speak it means Obama IS anti gay or will turn that way, they think because he wants Sanjay Gupta who they think doesn't want universal health care, that Obama will take back his words from the debate where he said "healthcare is a RIGHT!" That's what most if not all the negativity posts on his choices is all about, people's fear that Obama will turn his back on the left and choose to embrace the right.

All I was saying is that, it doesn't matter who he choose because he has the power and authority to make up his own mind, no matter who he listens to beforehand. That people should not worry that Obama is so weak willed that he will be influenced by other people's agenda's.

If you believe Obama when you voted for him, then you either continue to believe that he will follow through, or you assume that he can't stand up for his opinions and will easily bend to the ideas of others just because they work for him. I'm not saying you have to do either, I only ask that people wait and see based on the platform Obama ran on.

[Two Americas]

46. that doesn't work

Lincoln was voted in by people who were opposed to the slavery power.

All of Lincoln's appointees were strong and unambiguous opponents of slavery.

Had Lincoln appointed people - even for minor ceremonial roles - who were pro-slavery or had not been strong opponents of it, there would have been an uproar.

Reaching out and including pro-slavery voices, and taking a moderate and centrist approach had been tried, and the people chose a new course.

I believe that people voted for Obama because they were rejecting the religious right and Reganomics.

Reaching out and including voices for the religious right and Reaganomics, and taking a moderate and centrist approach have been tried, and the people chose a new course.

The election of Obama was much stronger rejection of the religious right and Reaganomics than the election of Lincoln was of slavery.


.

[Hellataz]

49. That might have been what this election was about for you but not for everyone

I believe this election was about unity, in fact it was almost second to hope and change in his campaign. This wasn't about rejecting anyone it was about bringing people together. Of course the election is always about the dems fighting the right to keep religion and trickle down economics out of government. But that's only part of the platform, it's not the whole kaboodle. Obama made it clear on election night, he reached out to everyone not just the left.

[Two Americas]

51. not true

Can't you remember back a few months?

People were saying that we must vote for Obama, that we must defeat the right wing before they destroyed the country and possibly the world. They were zealots, would never compromise, and would never make any effort whatsoever to understand any of us or our point of view. It was life and death, there was no alternative. The survival of the planet depended upon it. It was the most important election of our lifetime.

Now you are saying that after having completely routed those people, after seeing the public reject the right wingers (and the right wing stood for Reaganomics and the religious right - are you now denying that?) that we must now "listen to their point of view" and give their ideas consideration in all decisions, that we must reach out and include them.

That is surrender, not "unity" and I suspect that many people here are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome as well as severe cognitive dissonance.

How come the religious right and Reaganomics were the entire reason for opposing the right wing, but now are just "a part" of what we should think about - a very small part, according to you - and not the "while kaboodle?" What is the rest of this kaboodle other than people desperate need to entertain a fantasy in their minds and deny reality?

I won't even mention the war and the DLC - those were slam dunk STFU reasons given for voting for Obama, with hundreds and hundreds of people here saying that Obama was the anti-war and anti-DLC candidate, and that these were irrefutable and undeniable reasons for supporting him. They brooked no dissension on that, would entertain no argument about it. What happened to those important reasons why we must vote for Obama?

Here is another example of the cognitive dissonance: before the election, people said that he had to run to the right to win the election, and then he would be swinging to the Left. Now, some of the same people are saying that he had to run to the Left to win, but now must govern from the center and include the viewpoints of the right. Those two lines of argument contradict one another.

[FrenchieCat]

54. You voted for Obama in the Primaries?

[Two Americas]

59. you now damned well

You well know that I, and at one time or another the majority of DUers, supported Kucinich or Edwards, and there were quite a few who supported Biden.

What difference does that make? If our work and our votes were good enough to have in order to get Obama elected, then by God our opinions are good enough to be heard now.

I can't believe that you are resorting to re-opening the primaries and applying these little loyalty tests and smearing people.

[FrenchieCat]

61. The reason that I asked....is I realize that some voted for Obama in the GE

only because McCain was the other option.

If Obama wasn't perfect enough for some to vote for him during the primaries,
Why would those same folks now expect Obama to do everything the way they want him to?

Primaries have consequences. You are not going to get exactly what you wanted,
That was my point.

And so, most of the ones constantly criticizing him now,
are those that didn't care for him all that much then.

He didn't morph into the candidate folks originally preferred;
He didn't become John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Dennis Kucinich;
he stayed Barack Obama....and that is who won the election, and who is going to be the next President.

The other folks lost.

[Two Americas]

65. I stand by the points that I made

I stand by the points that I made. In fact, I am more convinced now that I am right about this after reading your last post.

I think you are using a deceptive method for discrediting others here, and are re-kindling the hard feelings from the primaries.

Obviously, if someone supported a different candidate during the primaries, Kucinich for example, that could have been for serious reasons, not merely because they hoped their favorite hero would win or because they did not like your favorite hero. They might be opposed to the spread of GMO food for example. When someone who is pro-GMO food gets appointed, by any politician to any post related to that issue, they will of course speak out against that. To do so is intellectually honest and consistent, and is not merely because they supported a different candidate during the primaries. The supported Kucinich because of his opposition to GMO food. They are still opposed to GMO food no matter who wins any election. Should they not be?

Supporting Kucinich because of his opposition to GMO food, and then continuing to oppose GMO food when he is not running is honest and consistent. It is what we would expect from honest and committed people - the best among us.

But you say that people are opposing an Obama appointee who is a fan of GMO food merely because they supported Kucinich and are therefore against Obama and are only expressing their opinion now because they were never "true Obama supporters."

That is a serious and malicious distortion of the truth about this, and obviously intended to smear and discredit fellow DUers who happen to disagree with you.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Yeah....right, it's all about smearing.......

Our next President, perhaps....and not done by me.

I'm not into smearing anyone....but after 5 years at this site, I'm no fool.
Posters have names, and with names comes posting history....and the Advance Search function
for those with that capability, just putting in a poster's name and a key word can yield
quite a bit as to what discussions folks enjoy having.

It would be one thing if posters criticized, as you used in your example on this issue or that issue; hopefully issues that they had championed before......

But what I find are posters who are negative with most of their comments in just about every single thread in where they participated, regardless of the topic. That's called a pattern.

But go ahead and point your finger at me.....
but it still won't erase historical facts.

[Two Americas]

68. you pointed the finger

You pointed the finger and are still doing it, with hints and insinuations about others having nefarious agendas that people could discover if they searched the history of their posting.

Just because people disagree with you, that does not mean they are being negative. There are people here who make hundreds and hundreds of posts that are never anything but attacks on posters expressing Left wing views. Aren't they to be seen as "negative?"

The strongest and most active Left wing posters here have been very consistent in their views, and they haven't changed because of Obama being in the picture, and they haven't changed because of who is or who isn't running for office. Of course it is easy to portray dissidents as "negative" - if they thought things were going along nicely and were just swell they wouldn't be dissidents, would they?

The anti-GMO people - regardless of which candidate they supported - are unhappy with Vilsack.

The anti-war people - regardless of which candidate they supported - are unhappy with Gates.

The people concerned about Wall Street and the financial industry - regardless of which candidate they supported - are unhappy with the choices Obama has made in that area.

GLBTQ people and their supporters and defenders - regardless of which candidate they supported - are unhappy with the Warren and Kaine selections.

Universal health care advocates - regardless of which candidate they supported - are unhappy with the SG choice.

And so on.

That is just the way it is. It is politics. Those people have not changed their views for the purpose of harming Obama, nor because they supported a different candidate in the primaries. People have the right to express their opinions without being subjected to ad hominem attacks, and making insinuations about their loyalty and agendas is making ad hominem attacks.

[Hellataz]

45. to answer your other points...

just because it didn't work out in the Buchanan administration doesn't mean it wont work now, in fact the more entrenched power is democrats since we have the majority in government.

there's also nothing wrong with trying to appease both sides, I have often found that showing respect and compassion to people who disagree with you is often the road that leads them to understand your points and compromise. Right now we are too divided, we need to unite and that's what he's trying to do.

Obama is appointing people he thinks will not just be "yes men", but people that will help him make informed decisions, but ultimately they are HIS decisions, not his staff. Obama is hiring people he knows has experience because he admits to not knowing everything and is willing to learn, but that doesn't mean he's gullible and will fall for anyone's agenda either.

I have seen nothing from Obama that would make me turn so negative on him as i've seen here from many. Maybe because I took something different from his speeches, maybe because I wish to continue hoping that this country will get better and feel that he has renewed that hope. Maybe because while i have no problems questioning him, I also know that I don't know more than he does, I'm not privy to information that the president is so I wouldn't begin to know his exact reasons for every choice he makes. But I will say that if he made a choice and i saw it through and it turned out bad, then i would not hesitate to call him out. That's the point. We have not yet seen one of his choices in action yet we have come down so hard on them before they've even started. do you think that's fair?

[Two Americas]

50. I think you are right

I think Obama is taking Buchanan's approach rather than Lincoln's approach. That isn't working - by definition. You cannot say if people wouldn't criticize it would be working any more than it would have made any sense to tell the Abolitionists that Buchanan's approach would have worked if they would just stop criticizing it.

I think you are right that Obama wants to consider the viewpoints of the right wing think tanks and the religious right in his decisions. If he still thinks there are worthwhile ideas to consider from those sources, then he is going to run into opposition from many of us here. If he has "something to learn" from those people, then he is less informed than most of us here.

You should never say that a politician is smarter than we are, so therefore we should just trust them. That, again, is contradictory to responsible citizenship in a representative democracy. That is exactly what the Bush zealots said about Bush.

"There's also nothing wrong with trying to appease both sides" you say. Yes there is. Need we go into that?

"I have often found that showing respect and compassion to people who disagree with you is often the road that leads them to understand your points and compromise."

The religious right leaders and the right wingers have absolutely no intention of ever understanding our point of view - any more than they already do, they actually do fully well understand our point of view, and want to destroy it and us - nor do they have any willingness to compromise. You can take that to the bank. The leaders of the right wing will be doing no compromising or understanding of anything. If that were not true, the people would not have voted the Democrats into office.

"Right now we are too divided, we need to unite and that's what he's trying to do."

You can't unite by demanding it of people. This idea that it is the people who are criticizing his choices who are in the way of this "unity" stuff is self-contradictory and nonsensical. Of course if all of us would get in line we would have "unity." But the right wingers will join this unity only when and as they get their way. They will never get in line, so that means that it is only the political Left that is being told to get in line, and that is happening right after the people just rejected the political right and voted for the Left. What sort of sense does that make?

[FrenchieCat]

56. Maybe because you don't have a primary hangover.....

Like most of those posting in this thread mad as hell do.

Apart from a few exception, most of the reponders to you in this thread never truly supported Obama....even if some held their nose and voted for him. The real Obama supporters, the majority of those are still not disappointed with him, two weeks before he takes office.

[Two Americas]

58. nonsense

Most of the people here at one time or another supported a candidate other than Obama. Most, if not all, got out and worked for and voted for Obama.

Your implication that their points of view are not legitimate because they "never truly supported Obama" is sinister and divisive.

We are back to that last resort refuge now, I see - loyalty tests.

Amazing. Religious right leaders are to be welcomed in to the big tent, but the loyalty and sincerity of Democrats who supported other candidates during the primaries is to be questioned.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Yes, it is sinister and divisive to have 15 threads about a Surgeon General selection

with most saying they hate it....
and 2 Leon Penetta as CIA Chief threads with a few folks here and there saying they love it.

Which is truly the most important selection?


See, I'm called a "fan" everyday by these same folks!

I'm told that I'm not supposed to even like my new President.
I'm told that to love him is to criticize him.
I'm told that I'm an apologist.
I have also been called much viler names than that.
Why? Because I'm not disappointed with the President elect yet.

My point is that once Obama had the nomination, there were many who certainly did work for him.
But there were others who did not, and really have not truly recovered from the primaries.
It's not as though it doesn't show.....it's actually quite transparent, even those who try and hide it.

We all know that Obama will never be perfect, but yet those who criticize him constantly actually act as though he should be. I'm not talking about those who have something to say about this or that occasionally, but rather those who only frequent threads spewing their discontent about this today, and that tomorrow.

[jgraz]

29. Um... because we live in a democracy?

Just sayin...

[Hellataz]

35. That's not really a compelling argument

just say'in...

[jgraz]

37. If you don't find that compelling, then I really can't help you.

[Hellataz]

42. It's just not a detailed thought out response, it's more like a sound byte.

Has he given you a reason to doubt that he wont keep his campaign promises? Do you have future first hand knowledge of how his cabinet will handle our countries issues?

Just saying "Because I can!" stomping your feet and running off is not a valid argument.
Absolutely this is a democracy and you have the freedom to question your government, but my question was not "CAN YOU?", it was WHY ARE YOU?
I didn't say I was wrong or right, I just stated my opinion and starting this thread was my expression of being open to hear different ones.
But you also have the freedom to be as simplistic as you want, it just wont convince anyone as to why he should be criticized "just because".

[anonymous171]

36. I'm giving him one term. If he fucks up, no second term.

[Hellataz]

40. That's fair. He should be allowed to prove if he's deserving of that office. if not, he's out.

[BlooInBloo]

55. Because many never supported him in the first place. They just pretended.

[FrenchieCat]

57. And barely did that.

A few might have even written in someone else on their ballot and hopes no one will ever find out. :rofl:

[lamp_shade]

67. Ding. Ding. Ding. Ding. That's been my observation too, and I'm usually right. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

94. and continue to try to sell opportunistic trash-talking as constructive criticism n/t

[eridani]

64. Because if you don't ask for what you want loudly and often--

--you not only won't get it, but you won't even get a decent compromise.

[liberation]

69. Indeed...

Progressives/liberals/lefties have been compromising for the better part of 4 decades, and look at what it has brought us: the country has shifted so much to the right that liberal ha almost become a bad word.

If all you can say to defend Obama's choices is to basically tell us pesky libs to "wait and see, and shut the f*ck up meanwhile." Then please understand that such arguments reek of arbitrary nature and are just plain weak.

If Obama is picking a cabinet of moderates and conservatives, it is fair to assume that the pursuing of liberal policies is not in Obama's set of priorities. And in case some of you are too thick to get it: some of us lefties worked damn hard to get Obama elected, being thrown under the bus so quickly by him is something that, I for one, don't like it a bit. And please do not patronize us, I don't need to have a 5 foot rod steel firmly planted up my ass to know it is not a good idea.

Some of us were right about Gore's ineffective campaign, we were right about what bad idea the Iraq war was, we were not thrilled with Kerry as a candidate, we were right about the dire situation the economy was in (all the way back to 2001), etc, etc, etc. So frankly seeing how our batting average is almost 100% vs. the 0% the "shut up, wait and see" crowd. I guess, I will go with my gut instinct... that Obama's definition of change is not what I would normally find in the dictionary.

That being said, do I think he is going to be a bad president, probably not. He can't be worse than the current junta, or the dynamic duo from hell that would have been McCain/Palin. That does not mean I am thrilled about the possibility of yet another conservative agenda being shoveled down my throat. I am sick and tired of having to have to compromise no matter what.

[PVnRT]

83. +1

[noamnety]

70. You haven't understood the complaints at all.

not if you are interpreting this as "Aren't you just saying that he's not strong enough to retain his own opinions and ideas?"

The fear, since you apparently missed it, is that he WILL retain his opinions and ideas.

FISA vote
anti-equal rights
Continued votes to fund the Iraq war (but but but he SAID he opposed it, isn't that good enough?)
Retaining 50,000 troops in Iraq, even after his so-called "withdrawal" (he just won't call it an occupation)
escalating violence in Afghanistan

There are others that aren't coming to mind in my pre-coffee wakening stage.

A number of us wanted someone who really was on the left, a Kucinich type, and instead we have a person who frequently leans to the right in his votes and his stated plans, he selects other people who frequently lean to the right in their votes and their ideals, and then we got a certain faction on DU who seem to be in denial about that, like it just couldn't possibly be that there's a reason his votes, statements, and advisers are all on the same page.

Disagree with me on his votes, his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, his position on separate but equal for gays. But at least don't insult me by trying to convince me those things didn't really happen.

[Window]

71. K/R.

Stop making sense.


:kick:

[loyalsister]

72. Nice post

You said a lot of things I have thought\felt and more. One thing I have learned when it comes to trying to bring people together is that opposing forces operate under assumption and habit exploited to promote group cohesion.
There are often interpretations that may or may not be correct. Presumptions about the future behavior and thoughts of others.
I have been working on breaking what I consider "bad habits" for awile. I was inspired by Obama's 2004 convention speech and started participating in some activities designed to help bring people with differing perspectives together. Funny thing is there is often the realization the everyone has stereotyped each other. It requires a willingness to admit the possibility of having been wrong on ocassion. Or just not exactly right. Giving up stereotypes is hard! And we all have them.
Opening our minds and accepting the possibility that our stereotypes are wrong before making an assesment on what has not happened is difficult when we are afraid, but giving in to fear only creates negativity.
I thought Liberals are supposed to have open minds?

[MadHound]

73. Because if we allow some of these picks the time to work

They will use that time to fuck things up worse than they already are. Summers comes to mind immediately.

Plus, I'm seeing these picks as less of a team of rivals and more and more as extensions of Obama. As numerous people have already pointed out, Obama has always been a center, center-right candidate.

Also part of being vocal is not wanting to see a repeat of Clinton, where we were so relieved to be free of the Reagan-Bush years we didn't critically look at Clinton, his policies and picks. We gave him free hand to do what he wanted, and he wound up being another corporatist, center-center right president who screwed us in many ways. Thus, we're going to hold Obama's feet to the fire early and often in hopes of preventing a Clinton repeat.

Finally, it is insulting to many of us to watch as Obama rewards those on the right, those who are corporatist, those who opposed him, yet completely ignores those of us who worked hard to put him in office. Where is our reward? Why should the religious right get a concession in the form of Rick Warren, yet the LGBT community, who worked hard for Obama, gets a slap in the face? Sorry, but this simply isn't right.

I'm not revolting yet, just criticizing at this point. However if Obama continues to go down the path he's on, a thing there will be a major revolt between now and 2012, and Obama will be a one term wonder.

[Waiting For Everyman]

74. Exactly.

IMO, this way when O does whatever he decides to, it's obvious that opposing opinions have been considered b/c they were given a "seat at the table" during discussion of it. It makes sense to have opposing views to balance his own (as long as these agencies headed by these people are not led in a bad direction because of it - that's my concern, but as you said, we'll have to see about that).

Also IMO, this indicates that he plans to be very left-leaning. So if that's the case, it doesn't hurt if he is cast as a centrist now. It legitimizes any liberal decisions he makes.

In any case, you're right. Foretelling the failure is pointless.

[bdamomma]

75. I am willing to give him a chance, but our biggest obstacle will

be Congress, they will never go for change and new ideas, they will be the ones to look out for.

Our work is not done, Congress will continue to get low approval ratings if they keep on isolating the American people, and I plan to disagree with them when they continue to get things wrong.

The problem is not Obama, it is who is in the Congress. Just my opinion.

[Solomon]

77. Kicked and recommended.

Great post.

[Armstead]

80. Because he already is at work....If he were chosing a diverse administration I'd feel differently

I have no problem with the "team of rivals" concept. If Obama surrounds himself with a wide spectrum of views, so much the better.

The problem is that he is surrounding himself with people from many positions EXCEPT THE LEFT. The people he is appointing range from Centrist to Outright Conservative.

I would feel a lot better about Obama if he were to give at least equal representation to those on the progressive side of the spectrum. Instead he seems intent on clinging to the old Cronys and Insiders.

[PVnRT]

82. Yes, let them get in office before we criticize. Good plan.

I'm sure everyone here did the same thing with Bush's appointees.

[LanternWaste]

91. I'm sure I'll eventually revolt

I'm sure I'll eventually revolt (as I do love to follow the popular marketing trends-- but then again, who doesn't?), but as I lack the stunning and keen political insight that so many here profess to hold, I am forced to wait until I see actual policy consequences from his appointments before I begin to metaphorically urinate on his administration...

[polichick]

92. This place would be a giant snooze if we just posted cheers...

I'd much rather read thoughts about the pros and cons of each choice.

[debbierlus]

93. Because when his policies represent corporations above people, we must protest and demand

Representation...

Look at his health care policy.

It is not financially sustainable, it does not address the main problem (health insurance and drug company profiteering), and it will not provide comprehensive health care to all Americans.

If we know objectively and factually that he is implementing a plan that will not address the problem and can't be financially sustained, we should just shut up and hope it will work?

Obama is not going to give us anything. We have to pressure Obama and all our representatives to represent US.

[stillcool]

99. What legislation can be passed?

and are the people that represent you willing to pass the legislation you want? Do you think the United States Congress is going to tell the Insurance Industry and Pharmaceuticals to go away? I agree, Obama will not give anything..he can't. I don't understand what country people think they live in.

[eridani]

95. What's wrong with pushing single payer health care?

Obama's plan is a Massachussetts style disaster in the making--completely unsustainable. That's because it allows the theft of health care dollars by private insurers to continue.