A clash of perspectives on the DU.

[Danger Mouse]

It seems to me at this point there are five types of posters on GD: P...

A. Those that have never liked Obama. Whether they were Kucinich, Edwards, or Hillary supporters, they are still bitter their candidate of choice lost. They may also simply be very far left. These posters never have anything positive to say, and tend to be very hyperbolic in their attacks. Insults towards Obama supporters are common. Very predictable style of post and OP.

B. Those that have serious doubts about Obama. They may like some of the stuff he has done, but generally they are very concerned with his policies and actions. They are often critical, but don't hesitate to be supportive when they feel they should be. They often take flack from Category E for their criticisms.

C. Posters that are in the middle of the road. They like a lot of stuff Obama has done, but there's a lot of stuff they don't like too. They may be supportive on one issue, not so supportive on another. Generally very even-handed posters.

D. Those that are very happy with Obama's performance. They may dislike some of the stuff he has done, but generally they are very satisfied with his policies and actions. They are often supportive, but will speak their mind if they disagree with something he has done They often take flack from Category A for their postings.

E. Those who are overly zealous in their support of Obama. They will hear no criticism of him, are extremely defensive, and attack often. They tend to attack critics of Obama, typically with very hyperbolic language. Their posts are very predictable and recognizable.

Overall, the posters who fall into category A and E are in the vast minority. They are very vocal and prolific, and thus they tend to be the posters that generate the most recognition for their side. Somebody who constantly posts anti-Obama hit pieces drags down the other posters with legitimate concerns. Their posts make the people who are more favorable towards Obama become very defensive. Likewise, somebody who constantly posts overly starry-eyed or worshipful threads drags down the other posters that are generally happy with president's performance. Their posts annoy people who are more critical, and they may become very defensive because of that.

The reason we bash on each other so much is that we give too much attention to the loudest and most obnoxious among us, giving them attention and legitimacy that they don't really deserve. Ruggerson had a very nice post earlier about how one can be both supportive AND critical of Obama at the same time, and it's well worth reading.

Anyway, being supportive of Obama's policies doesn't make you a bad liberal. Neither does being a critic. It's not up to a poster on the internet to determine who a 'true' liberal is or not. The best way for us to support president Obama is to defend him from the right, support him from the left, but be critical of him when he is wrong. If we're doing those three things, we're doing a pretty good job of supporting him. I'm pretty damn sure our president himself would expect us to dissent. Anyway, have a great day, and happy fighting! :hi:

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Krugman

KrugmanKrugmanKrugman

KrugmanKrugmanKrugmanKrugmanKrugmanKrugmanKrugmanKrugman

:crazy:

[Danger Mouse]

2. I'm not even touching that one.

:P

[tbyg52]

12. Thanks, I needed a good laugh!

:spray:

[Canuckistanian]

20. Krugman's a hack. No, wait, he's a prophet.

I'm so confused. :crazy:

[Political Heretic]

41. (misplaced)

[tekisui]

3. My name is tekisui, and I am a "D" GD:P DUer.

[azmouse]

4. It'll be interesting to read the comments on your thoughtful post.

I'm a proud 'D'. :)

[lamp_shade]

5. We're all so well qualified to judge when he's wrong, aren't we?

Excellent post BTW.

[PBS Poll-435]

6. I am type "F"

Was a Hillary supporter until June, then a huge Obama supporter. I was never a huge critic of Obama's policies, because they were >98% identical to my candidate in the primaries.

I don't agree with him on everything, but I certainly will defend him and his policies against the "concern" trolls.

And I don't get all gushy on the picture/puppy/swingset threads.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

37. You might like this...

Krugman in Newsweek: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5350983

With dry humor, he once told a friend the story of attending an economic summit in Little Rock after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. As the friend recounted the story to NEWSWEEK, "Clinton asked Paul, 'Can we have a balanced budget and health-care reform?'—essentially, can we have it all? And Paul said, 'No, you have to be disciplined. You have to make choices.' Then Paul says to me (deadpan), 'That was the wrong answer.' Then Clinton turns to Laura Tyson and asks the same questions, and she says, 'Yes, it's all possible, you have your cake and eat it too.' And then says, 'That was the right answer'." (Tyson became chairman of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers; she did not respond to requests to comment.)

[PBS Poll-435]

45. So, who was right? Tyson or Krugman

The Clinton 90s was the longest period of economic expansion since WW2. (And inflation was controlled rather well.)

[bluesbassman]

7. That was a very good analysis DM.

Count me in the "D" group. Disagreeing and challenging a position is healthy for the body politic. Criticizing for it's own sake, or lock stepping is not.

[MadBadger]

8. I think Obama's positions on gay rights suck...I'm in the D category

Though I'm sure the A group think Im an E.

[Jennicut]

40. Nope, I am very supportive of Obama and too think his gay rights policies

leave a lot to be desired. He needs to be pushed to the left on that.

[Fire1]

9. I'm classified in the D category.

[Cha]

10. Yeah, I support Obama and

have his back. All I've ever known since I got into politics in 2000 was the coup, fascism, and corporatemediawhores. We still have the corporatemediawhores but we also have a real president for the people whether his every move is able to satisfy everybody or not.

I'm looking at the big picture and when I've wanted something known to the White House..I write Obama and Team.

I was just over in GD via Greatest Page and that seemed like a little steaming hot bed of anti-Obamaism from clicking to links only to learn "you are ignoring this author". That's left over from the primaries.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. "Bitter"?

Clinging to their beliefs?

Say what you want about HRC supporters, they seem to be the only ones who aren't disillusioned, surprised, betrayed, shocked or outraged. They knew which policies they were voting for, because they didn't like it last summer either.

[tridim]

13. This would make two interesting polls

What type of DU'er are you?

What type of DU'er do you believe represents the majority on DU?

[Celebration]

14. Did you leave out the Republican plants? n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. Ya seriously. I'm a Republican plant and I want my recognition!

:P

[Top Cat]

16. Kick... I totally support our President

[Lex]

17. No one actually thinks they are A or E.

nt

[Starry Messenger]

18. That's what I was thinking.

It's human nature to think oneself the soul of reason. It's just the way we are.

[bettyellen]

19. it's like everyine thinks they are "middle class" including the wealthy and working poor.

[LWolf]

21. Not quite.

I fit in this part of group "A:"

Those that have never liked Obama.....They may also simply be very far left.

I do not fit in this part of group A: These posters never have anything positive to say, and tend to be very hyperbolic in their attacks. Insults towards Obama supporters are common. Very predictable style of post and OP.

Bitter about the primaries? Yes, but not because any particular candidate lost. I never expected my candidate of choice to win.

Bitter because the field was narrowed to two corporatist centrists before 44 states got to weigh in? DAMNED STRAIGHT.

I rarely have anything positive to say about Obama, but it does happen. I have defended him against racism. I have spoken positively about some of his remarks about bilingual education and about dogs. I've spoken positively about the closing of the detention center at gitmo. I've spoken very positively about Michelle's white house gardening project.

I don't dislike the man personally. I do oppose his policies, and I have no intention of "shutting up" or "going away." Or "getting in line."

I also have not insulted his supporters, unless disagreeing with them is automatically an insult. I HAVE been "insulted," if you want to call it that, BY Obama supporters. Just today, I was called a "mindless hypocrite" by one, and "pissy" by another, because I dared to agree with criticism of the president. Juvenile name-calling is a recreational pastime at DU.

If I were to group the various perspectives on DU, my groups would look like this:

1. Obama fans: they will support him no matter what he says or does.

2. Partisans: Issues take 2nd place to party.

3. The dlc/centrist/3rd way/"new" dems who are thrilled to have one of their own in the WH.

4. Non-partisans: Issues rank higher than party.

5. Independents: Partisan goals are irrelevant.

I think you can find thoughtful people, obnoxious people, and people who let their tempers get away from them on occasion in every group.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Brazenly Liberal]

22. Proud to be a D

I don't like his stand on gay rights and I've said so, but otherwise he's doing fine.

BTW, don't be too quick to toss people into the "E" group. The antagonism toward him on this site is so pervasive that some people who know very well he isn't perfect feel they need to defend him as though he is. Fercryinoutloud, the GNOP talking points are all over the place! Me, I just say "Hallelujah!" for the ignore list!

[geek tragedy]

23. Category AA: Neo-Naderites Those who hate any Democrat who makes a difference.

These people love irrelevant fringe figures like Dennis Kucinich. But, any Democrat who has the ability to get stuff done is an evil corporatist sellout slave to Wall Street.

They are DU's version of Freepers.

They hate Bill Clinton. They hated Hillary during the primary. And now they think Obama is a servant of the devil.

[Sebastian Doyle]

27. Now this is the bullshit that needs to stop

Just because someone opposes Obama's Wall Street Whore-centric economic team continuing to enable the criminals who have destroyed this country for the last 28 years does not make them a "Freeper", a "PUMA" or a "Naderite".

Can we PLEASE dispense with that sort of broad based attack shit already?

I'm not ready to throw in the towel on Obama entirely, but either he doesn't yet get it that Wall Street is not America, or (like the DLC) he simply doesn't give a shit. And if it's the latter, then how the Hell can we trust him on anything else? :evilfrown:

(and just for the record, I've never voted for a Repuke, or Nader, and would have stayed home in November if Hillary had been the nominee, so I don't fit any of your labels)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

44. Sorry, but you're a NeoNaderite.

Enjoy your demonization of the President.

[Jennicut]

39. Yawn, They bore me.

[Two Americas]

25. F

F. - Those for whom everything is not about Obama.

[Mass]

26. Yep. This was is missing. Thanks.

[cliffordu]

29. Are you calling me Hitler??

:rofl:

[laugle]

30. Good analysis!

I would say the category "B" would be the best illustration for me. Obviously, many people had doubts, as evidenced by our divided primary, but I strongly believe we all want him to suceed.

[MadMaddie]

31. I think I fall between C and D

Nice post.

[amborin]

32. you have not provided an exhaustive categorization...some folks don't fit into any of your

categories, the way you've set them up

[Danger Mouse]

34. This is an opinion piece, not an official scientific categorization.

:P

[Thickasabrick]

33. So....a DU member who is a D would be a DUD.....

[empyreanisles]

35. I guess I'm between D and E.

As a black male, I feel a personal connection to Obama and am somewhat invested in his success. He would therefore have to pretty much have to turn into a conservative Republican for me to completely abandon him (politically, that is).

My biggest concern is Afghanistan. I had hoped we would just pull out completely, but I am encouraged that the President is at lease pursuing a narrower goal and is de-emphasizing the role of combat troops.

On everything else I am either satisfied, or willing to wait longer to see what true outcome Obama is planning.

[doc03]

36. I am type "B" I guess. I like many things he has done but

I wish he would concentrate on fixing the the economy first. I understand he ran on universal health care but the economic situation in the world has changed dramatically since he was campaigning. I don't think this is the time to start any new spending on health-care. The proposed budget projects huge deficits indefinitely. Every program the government has ever come up with on heath-care has cost far more than the initial projections. If the budget is already projecting huge deficits it is no telling what the cost will ultimately come to. The other thing that I oppose is this Cap and Trade tax, first of all I don't believe humans are causing any climate change it's just a cycle. The Cap and Trade will drive electric rates through the roof and force what industry we still have off shore. On these issues I will call my Congressman and Senators and voice my opposition and hope they can stop these reckless spending and the tax increases I disagree with. There are many extremist liberal issues people are pushing that I will do all I can to stop.

[Jennicut]

38. I am definitely D to C. Danger Mouse, darn you for making so much sense!

We are all liberals here, just different types and shades. I love the people on DU. :)

[Political Heretic]

42. There are those who call me.......... B.

I had originally said C, and if you wanted to get really really nerdy I'd say I feel most comfortable between B and C. But because I do take a lot of heat sometimes from the "E" or "D" group, perhaps "B" is most fair.

Personally I think between B and C is and important distinction because there are times where my hopes for Obama have taken priority, and I have written lots in the past about the possibility and potential of what might happen if the popular support that drove him to office stayed organized and if he used some of his gifts to certain ends. On the other hand, I was committed from the very beginning to candid critique and criticism when I felt he was wrong, so....

[acmavm]

43. You make a lot of sense. But something that you don't address is the

whiney crap line from the true believers that we want Obama to fail. That is ignorance of the highest order. He fails, we go down right along with the rest of the country. And it doesn't take four years to recognize that the man who campaigned and made many promises to many people IS NOT the man who is currently appointing Wall Street criminals to manage the bailout.

Why didn't he just empty the treasury to them in the first place rather than appointing them to a position in the government? The way it works now is that we let them give themselves billions to pay off gambling debts AND we get to pay 'em a salary as well.

His position on outsourcing is another example:

US doesn’t need outsourced jobs: Obama
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 08:21 PM by OhioChick
27 Mar, 2009, 0930 hrs IST,IANS

WASHINGTON: In the midst of its worst recession in decades, President Barack Obama says it would be better to create new jobs that can't be outsourced instead of bringing back such low paying jobs from other countries.

'Not all of these jobs are going to come back,' he told a questioner during an 'Online Townhall' from the White House who asked when would jobs outsourced to other countries come back and be made available to the unemployed workers in the US.

'And it probably wouldn't be good for our economy for a bunch of these jobs to come back because, frankly, there's no way that people could be getting paid a living wage on some of these jobs -- at least in order to be competitive in an international setting.'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=436641

Now here is what he said during the campaign:

<snip>Obama opposes outsourcing of jobs
Agencies Posted: Jun 28, 2008 at 1133 hrs

Washington, June 28: Taking a tough stand against outsourcing, the presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama said that the choice is between giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas or give benefit to those corporations that keep jobs domestically.
"We can keep giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, or we can give tax benefits to companies that invest right here in New Hampshire," Senator Obama said at a joint appearance with Senator Hillary Clinton in Unity, New Hampshire.

"We can have a tax code that rewards wealth and hands out billions of dollars more to big corporations and multimillionaires. Or we can provide a USD 1,000 tax cut to 95 per cent of families in America, start rewarding work and not just wealth, and eliminate income taxes for seniors making USD 50,000 a year or less," Obama said, adding that's an agenda for change that we can believe in. That's the choice that we can make in this election.

"We can allow millions of Americans to work full-time but still not make enough to support their families, or we can raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation, and ensure that hard work pays off in America," the Illinois Senator said.
http://www.expressindia.com/story_print.php?storyId=328...
___________

Obama vows to stop outsourcing, India Inc irked
started by TruthSeeker 7 mnths ago

Washington/New Delhi: In remarks that are bound to raise hackles in India, Barack Obama made a strong anti-outsourcing pitch after securing the Democratic Presidential nomination vowing to end tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas if elected to office.



Playing to the gallery on the hot button issue of outsourcing in his acceptance speech, Obama kept up with the rhetoric on the subject that has been a staple of Democratic campaigning and went on to spell out what he would do as President on the front.



"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America," said Obama, who has been fiercely opposing outsourcing.

Source: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/obama-vows-to-stop-outsourc...
_____________

Obama vows to award US cos that stop outsourcing
Agencies
Posted online: Sep 04, 2008 at 1250 hrs

Washington, September 4:US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama once again touched on the ticklish issue of outsourcing and while vowing to end tax breaks to companies that ship works overseas conceded that all lost jobs could not be redeemed.

Promising to retain as well as create more jobs for the Americans, the Democratic nominee said while all lost jobs cannot be redeemed, further movement can be halted by giving incentives to companies investing in the country.

"Not all jobs that have left are going to come back. We can stop some of them that are already leaving by stopping to give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and saving those tax breaks for investing in plants and equipment right here in the US," Obama said at a campaign stop in Ohio.

http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/357238 /
______________________

Outsourcing critics worry about Obama advisors

By Krishna Kumar V. E.
December 10, 2008


Outsourcing critics worry about Obama advisors

Critics of outsourcing who saw in Barack Obama their saviour, are now worried that the President-elect of United States may tone down his commitment to stop sending jobs offshore because of pressure from his advisors.

Noted Wall Street Journal writer William J. Bulkely believes that the reason for such a meltdown in Obama’s position could be that as many as 17 members of his transition economic advisory board are corporate honchos who have a long history of outsourcing.

Bulkely quotes Ron Hira of the Rochester Institute of Technology and author of the famous book ‘Outsourcing America’ as saying that the Obama team is yet to take up the issue of white-collar outsourcing very seriously.

The President-elect had promised to stop tax breaks to companies that shifted jobs overseas, a position that he still holds but could be forced to change giving the diverse opinions held by members of his transition team.

The blog says that almost every member of the advisory board that has been involved in corporate America has been connected to outsourcing. The author goes on to say that the companies where these advisors worked earlier are refusing to comment now.
http://www.bpowatchindia.com/bpo_news/obama_outsourcing...

_____
And what about that Afgan surge? Like never-ending war in Afganistan is going to have an effect on al Quaeda. al Quaeda is not a country. It is fluid. It is everywhere. It is made up of devoted fanatical zealots (a lot like the IDF) that can cross borders at will. And it was supported and fed and allowed to grow into the monster it has become because of aid and comfort from the Saudis, including some in the Saudi royal family. It has spread throughout the area and is now our biggest pain in the ass in Pakistan. And let us now forget that they are now claiming credit for the attack in Mumbai. And they struck Algiers late in 2008. So how the hell does forever war in Afganistan help us with al Quaeda? Answer: It doesn't.

Just a couple of areas where there is a LOT of room for disagreement with the Obama administration.

[bonzotex]

46. I can't help it..........

It seems to me at this point there are five types of posters on GD: Circus Peanut

A. Those that have never liked Circus Peanuts. Whether they were popcorn, chocolate, or actual peanut or other nut supporters, they are still bitter their candidate of choice lost. They may also simply be anti-candy or snack. These posters never have anything positive to say, and tend to be very hyperbolic in their attacks. Insults towards Circus Peanuts supporters are common. Very predictable style of post and OP.

B. Those that have serious doubts about Circus Peanuts. They may like some of the stuff about them, but generally they are very concerned with the nutritional value. They are often critical, but don't hesitate to be supportive when they feel they should be. They often take flack from Category E for their criticisms.

C. Posters that are in the middle of the road. They like a lot of stuff about Circus Peanuts, but there's something don't like too. They may be supportive of the soft chewy-ness, not so supportive of the not quite quantifiable flavor. Generally very even-handed posters.

D. Those thatare very happy with Circus Peanuts. They may dislike some things about them, but generally they are very satisfied to grab a bag and start munching. They are often supportive, but will speak their mind if they disagree with something such as the suitability of eating Circus peanuts before dinner. They often take flack from Category A for their postings.

E. Those who are overly zealous in their support of Circus Peanuts. They will hear no criticism of them, are extremely defensive, and attack often. They tend to attack critics of Circus Peanuts, typically with very hyperbolic language. Their posts are very predictable and recognizable.

Overall, the posters who fall into category A and E are in the vast minority. They are very vocal and prolific, and thus they tend to be the posters that generate the most recognition for their side. Somebody who constantly posts anti-Circus Peanut hit pieces drags down the other posters with legitimate concerns. Their posts make the people who are more favorable towards Circus Peanuts become very defensive. Likewise, somebody who constantly posts overly starry-eyed or worshipful threads drags down the other posters that are generally happy with the taste and texture of circus peanuts. Their posts annoy people who are more critical, and they may become very defensive because of that.

The reason we bash on each other so much is that we give too much attention to the loudest and most obnoxious among us, giving them attention and legitimacy that they don't really deserve. Ruggerson had a very nice post earlier about how one can be both supportive AND critical of Circus Peanuts at the same time, and it's well worth reading.

Anyway, being supportive of Circus Peanuts doesn't make you a bad liberal. Neither does being a critic. It's not up to a poster on the internet to determine who a 'true' liberal is or not. The best way for us to support Circus Peanuts is to defend them from the right, support him from the left, but be critical of them when sensible. If we're doing those three things, we're doing a pretty good job of supporting them. I'm pretty damn sure manufacturers of Circus Peanuts would expect us to dissent. That’s why they make a variety of other non-nutritive sweet snacks we can enjoy! Anyway, have a great day, and happy fighting!