Question to those angry Dem purists: Where is the outrage now?
Thursday, June 26, 2008 | Labels: politics, rant |For the post
below this line:
|
[Update 6/27 7AM: edited to make focus more clear. Well, maybe. ]
I still support him whole-hartedly...
But I *did* say, many times, that I saw little difference between Obama and Clinton. That neither one of them was much better at supporting a real change in the country. That they both might well do it or maybe they would just play it safe. But nothing in either's actions suggested anything resembling a jolting shift in policy.
I mean, maybe in reality Obama really wants to do it, where I was less certain about Clinton. But when push comes to shove so far, it's really just more of the same either way.
Interestingly, when I said or implied such things most just assumed I was, in reality, a rabid Clinton partisan. Odd, that. Especially given that everything I wrote about this subject made it clear that I was quite neutral on the two. But people believe what they want sometimes. Heck, we all do that. But it says more about them them me.
Of course, the basic premise I made was correct. It was proven in the entirety of both of their past voting records.
And it continues now:
I swear when I heard these on the radio I figured they were talking about McCain.
Is anyone else kinda pissed at this? Because I am.
And, yes, no doubt, Clinton would have been similarly middle-of-the-road throw-the-party-off-a-cliff.
So what?
The Democratic candidate for President is saying these things. I don't give a fuck who that person is. I don't like the content of what is being said. If it were Clinton, I'd be fucking pissed at her for it.
But it's Obama... and it remains disheartening. Maybe more so because his rhetoric suggested something totally different.
And herein lies my question:
Have Kos or Daily Kos diarists reamed him for these things? (They did it to Kerry in 2004, for the entire general election, over every single misstep. Rightly so, in fact. And they were far more vicious to Clinton for transgressions both real and entirely made up because they needed a good scream. )
Has Kieth Olbermann issued a Special Comment against him for either of these? (He has shown that he has absolutely no favoritism for Democrats... or at least one or two.)
Has John Aravosis? (Who seems to have descended to the level of a petulant twat burning bridges at all ends - ooh, update: he even despises that Obama's being nice to Clinton. What a fucking scuzz-bucket.)
No?
Isn't that weird?
(btw, please please please show me a link where they indeed DO take him to task. The real deal, though, please, no mealy-mouthed justifications. The above mentioned have shown they have no need for pussy-footing around. I'll be jazzed to see it if it's real and I'll amend the statement)
I think it speaks volumes about those individuals. How true are people to their values versus how true are they to their arbitrarily chosen "winner".
By the way, if anyone says "oh this is just politics," I agree. Completely. That's not my point.
Just as Clinton has done and would have done.
I was very well aware that both were bound to displease me on points like that. This is simply illustrating the truth of that.
However, for my own selfish reasons, I suppose, I want to actually be proud to support the Democratic candidate. I can't find him on any of the channels this week.
Maybe next week, he'll be back on the TeeVee.
I'm really less worried about that though, and more about the people who have suddenly gone silent. It's kinda like they all blew their wad and aren't interested anymore.
----
Late update, since no one else cares: Markos, evidently, is indeed standing on principle and not treating Obama like a Democrat's Bush (ie, a god who can do no wrong). From Glenn Greenwald, who is really taking Obama to task:
I still support him whole-hartedly...
But I *did* say, many times, that I saw little difference between Obama and Clinton. That neither one of them was much better at supporting a real change in the country. That they both might well do it or maybe they would just play it safe. But nothing in either's actions suggested anything resembling a jolting shift in policy.
I mean, maybe in reality Obama really wants to do it, where I was less certain about Clinton. But when push comes to shove so far, it's really just more of the same either way.
Interestingly, when I said or implied such things most just assumed I was, in reality, a rabid Clinton partisan. Odd, that. Especially given that everything I wrote about this subject made it clear that I was quite neutral on the two. But people believe what they want sometimes. Heck, we all do that. But it says more about them them me.
Of course, the basic premise I made was correct. It was proven in the entirety of both of their past voting records.
And it continues now:
I swear when I heard these on the radio I figured they were talking about McCain.
Is anyone else kinda pissed at this? Because I am.
And, yes, no doubt, Clinton would have been similarly middle-of-the-road throw-the-party-off-a-cliff.
So what?
The Democratic candidate for President is saying these things. I don't give a fuck who that person is. I don't like the content of what is being said. If it were Clinton, I'd be fucking pissed at her for it.
But it's Obama... and it remains disheartening. Maybe more so because his rhetoric suggested something totally different.
And herein lies my question:
Have Kos or Daily Kos diarists reamed him for these things? (They did it to Kerry in 2004, for the entire general election, over every single misstep. Rightly so, in fact. And they were far more vicious to Clinton for transgressions both real and entirely made up because they needed a good scream. )
LATE UPDATE at bottom of post - Apparently, Kos IS taking him to task...
Has Kieth Olbermann issued a Special Comment against him for either of these? (He has shown that he has absolutely no favoritism for Democrats... or at least one or two.)
OMG UPDATE: No! In fact, he SUPPORTS Obama's position and the new FISA bill! Wha???
Has John Aravosis? (Who seems to have descended to the level of a petulant twat burning bridges at all ends - ooh, update: he even despises that Obama's being nice to Clinton. What a fucking scuzz-bucket.)
No?
Isn't that weird?
(btw, please please please show me a link where they indeed DO take him to task. The real deal, though, please, no mealy-mouthed justifications. The above mentioned have shown they have no need for pussy-footing around. I'll be jazzed to see it if it's real and I'll amend the statement)
I think it speaks volumes about those individuals. How true are people to their values versus how true are they to their arbitrarily chosen "winner".
By the way, if anyone says "oh this is just politics," I agree. Completely. That's not my point.
But if you say that now while a few months back you were flaying a fellow Democrat alive for doing the very same thing, consider yourselves official hypocrites.I trust Obama, however: I mean, as much as I would have trusted Clinton or almost any other Democrat in the position of candidate for President. Which is to say, I don't trust them much, but I get the deal. He's apparently courting the Republican base, or something of that sort, which is a totally valid political maneuver.
Which, to reiterate on earlier posts, is why I don't trust you- the you's who fit that bill, that is.
Just as Clinton has done and would have done.
I was very well aware that both were bound to displease me on points like that. This is simply illustrating the truth of that.
However, for my own selfish reasons, I suppose, I want to actually be proud to support the Democratic candidate. I can't find him on any of the channels this week.
Maybe next week, he'll be back on the TeeVee.
I'm really less worried about that though, and more about the people who have suddenly gone silent. It's kinda like they all blew their wad and aren't interested anymore.
----
Late update, since no one else cares: Markos, evidently, is indeed standing on principle and not treating Obama like a Democrat's Bush (ie, a god who can do no wrong). From Glenn Greenwald, who is really taking Obama to task:
Markos -- who observed: "I don't think he's going to lose any support, I mean, let's be honest. I mean, it's either Obama or John McCain" -- nonetheless added:THANK YOU! I've just recovered some respect for Markos. That's no small feat, considering.I think what's at stake, though, is a lot of the intensity of support for Barack Obama. And he spent the last two years telling us how he's going to be the leader of the free world, not to mention the Democratic Party and this nation . . . . I don't want to hear him talk about leadership. I don't want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution; I want to see him do it.
For the post
above this line:
I never thought he was the best candidate and I am pretty unimpressed. As you say, he is pretty much Hillary Lite. I just thought she had a lot more experience. That said, I will go to the voting booth in November, hold my nose and vote democrat without any real expectation of change. The best I can say for Obama is that he is preferable to McCain.
atari, every democratic presidential candidate that's lost in my lifetime has lost because he was perceived as weak--weak on communism, or on crime, or on economic issues, or on terrorism, or just weak in general.
and these candidates--mcgovern, carter, mondale, dukakis, gore, kerry--didn't have half the baggage that this black guy with the muslim name is dragging behind him.
having secured the democratic nomination, obama's got one goal and one goal only right now: if he has a hope in hell of winning this election he's got to reassure middle america that he's solid.
and in order to do so--to win over joe and ethel in toledo--he's gonna have to take positions that will drive the party faithful crazy.
look, he doesn't need to court your vote anymore; he knows he's got you. now he's going after the hearts and minds of people who don't think anything like you--and that's a totally different ballgame than all this "hope" and "change" horseshit he's been peddling up until now.
i've said it before and i'll say it again: this guy is no different than any other politician who wants to win--a fact that's only gonna become more apparent in the months ahead.
Evilganome: Heh, well that's something, anyways. Though to be honest, I wouldn't have had to hold my nose for either of them. There were a lot worse choices out there. Some better ones, too, sadly.
mkf: You do get that I agree with you, right?
Note my words: "I trust Obama, however... I get the deal. He's apparently courting the Republican base, or something of that sort, which is a totally valid political maneuver."
It's just good to keep the correcting (from my perspective, of course) voices alive... which is precisely what all the people I mentioned have STOPPED doing so far. THEY have the pulpit, they tore apart one candidate with it. They can at least suggest course corrections, whatever good it will do. That they don't reinforces my disdain for them. (again, some examples that they really are taking him to task would change things)
Interestingly, the core of the post is the point I was trying to make (as opposed to the title). It's what many people were trying to say all along. All these candidates will "say anything to get elected".
My slap was at people that refused to believe Obama was even capable of such behavior while Clinton was dribbling the devil's spit every time she opened her mouth. I think I've made it clear that I felt people that believed that were completely full of shit. And I wouldn't have minded *that* if many of those folks weren't such complete assholes in their words and deeds.
yeah, i caught the "i know this is just politics" disclaimer, but when i looked at your rant as a whole, i saw that what you really want, you idealist you, is for mr. smith to stand up for the principles he truly believes in and take the high road of righteousness all the way to washington.
well, mr. smith tried that already--except in this case, his name was dennis kucinich and he couldn't even get his own party to fall in behind him, much less the country.
should the party faithful try to hold obama's feet to the fire? sure, for all the good it'll do--because, again, he's got you guys sewn up (i mean, what are you gonna do if you get pissed--vote for mccain? of course not, and he damn well knows it).
this is why a two-party system is so inherently flawed, atari; what we need in this country is a viable middle-ground third party--that way the bastards couldn't take anybody's vote for granted.
oh, and just so you know, you lost me at "i trust obama" ;)
OK, I altered the post to reflect the target of my ire. It was not Obama.
No, I don't expect Obama to stand up for anything that rocks the centrist-right boat at this point. I absolutely expect him to alter his words now that he doesn't need Democrats' votes.
He is a politician and right now he has to do the dance. That has been my point all along. Everything he has done is political. Everything Clinton did was political.
I had no issue with anything done by either campaign... none of it - none - was out of the bounds of normal political bullshit. (Yeah, there were all the absolute lies made up by some and eaten up by many - which only proved certain bloggers really want to be in the GOP)
But, back then, acting political - doing anything to win - was completely unacceptable to some folks.
Now, it totally fine. And that's why I said that I could not trust certain folks- mainly some political bloggers - anymore. It's clear their values... well they don't really have any, IMO.
A lot of other folks *were* balanced and were fair even when they clearly had a strong preference: Atrios, Kevin Drum, Crooks&Liars, and quite a few others.
But ones with dramatic influence like Markos, Aravosis, Talking points Memo, and (non-blogger) Olbermann? No way. They blew it for me. Their words are inherently suspect. I do not trust them in any way any more.
I don't even know if they could earn my respect back, but I doubt they give a shit. The lot of them (maybe TPM excluded) are pretty opinionated at crap on anyone who disagrees with them in any way.
Which is probably why their so hard for me to trust now.
Heh I can't stand either of them and always detest legislative candidates for executive positions given their penchant for pandering and weak positions. I'm seriously considering Bob Barr though I'm totally against their foreign positions. I think deserting your party sends a clear signal that they have to pay attention to you instead of throwing you under a bus in the attempt to grab a different section of the electorate. Blindly voting for a single party has destroyed the black electorate over the last 40 years and I don't want gays going down the same path.
Though the position changing doesn't bother me the fact that he has NO clear positions five months before the general election is reason enough to doubt the ability of the man to lead and that is what I'm voting on. The only reason I'm considering voting for the man is that the financial disastor that will befall us by once more grasping at socialism might save the next generation from the same ignorant mistakes of history and logic. There is no way for the US to continue to fund medicare and Social Security so why not have a democrat be the one to break the news.