Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Even With Obama in Charge, Anti-War Democrats Powerless

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MzNov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:06 PM
Original message
Even With Obama in Charge, Anti-War Democrats Powerless

I can remember when just being a Democrat meant you were anti-war. And I can remember when people who were against war were not ridiculously branded "liberals." It's all just slipping away, isn't it?

Here's a view from Common Dreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/16-1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. when did being a Democrat EVER mean you were anti-war??
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzNov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. a very long time ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. like when?
:shrug:

The Democratic party has NEVER been anti-war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Can you be more specific? I'm almost 60 years old, and aside from us old hippies & "fringe lefties"
Democrats have never been anti-war in my memory.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzNov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. they've always been in mine

so I guess it depends what type of drugs we did

the point of the article tho is anti-war Dems in Congress. Just not going to happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Many Dems opposed the war to end slavery
Other then that rather sad tongue in cheek example, I can't think of a time when being a Dem meant one opposed war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. It "slipped away" a very long time ago.
If you go back and read Obama's statements and speeches, he's doing pretty much what he said he'd do. Bush was such a disappointment
that many people didn't really pay close attention to the details of what Obama was saying. I'm not saying that Obama lied. He's
too shrewd to do that. I'm saying it was easy to be idealistic about how things would change if he got elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzNov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I listened to every word Obama said in his campaign.

this article is more about the Dems in Congress than Obama.

I know exactly what he said and was under no illustions. Bigger disappointment maybe, but no illusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. "Liberals" maybe. But the Democratic Party is not and has never been...
anti-war. Like the president, most of us are anti-"stupid"-war. There's a fissure developing within the Democratic coalition, and like many others, I find myself moving further away from the so-called "liberals". Thankfully, however, their power & influence is pretty much limited to the internet and The Rachel Maddow Show.

A lot of extreme leftist organizations are finding out, the hard way, that their influence & fundraising ability is in serious decline against a hugely popular Democratic president, as it should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Perhaps you can point out the *smart* war in which we now find ourselves engaged?
Apparently some people think it's smart to get involved in a war on the other side of the planet with exquisitely difficult and lengthy supply lines and one in which we are culturally clueless about the motivations of the various sides to the war.

There are a long list of empires which have gone to Afghanistan to die, with the Soviets being only the most recent.

We have already suffered one monstrously horrible episode of blowback for cluelessly dicking around in Afghanistan, the next one could well be worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Oh, I don't know. Perhaps we could store Pakistan's nukes in "Jawjah" so the...
Taliban won't get hold of them? It's okay being all anti-war and idealistic until you find yourself staring down the barrel of a nuclear warhead. I know, in your world, these threats don't exist. But in the real world, there really are bad people, who want to do bad things. Go figure....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. We are at war in Pakistan?
I did not know that.

/Johnny Carson


The fact you had to get personal with me shows the bankruptcy of your position.


The only thing we are going to accomplish in either Afghanistan or Pakistan is to inflame the population against us, we simply don't have the cultural understanding needed to keep that from happening.

I guess you've missed the threads about "Hunting men for Jesus" regarding our troops proselytizing in Muslim countries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. What's the difference between LBJ and Obama?
Exactly. What's the difference?!

He's really flaking out on important war and foreign policy related issues. Weakness, not leadership, and too willing to be manipulated by the military industrial complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napoleon_in_rags Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
11. Gotta say, I can remember when being a Dem was pretty much being anti-war.
It was called the Democratic presidential primary, circa 2008 Hillary was busy regretting her Iraq war vote and Obama was basking in popularity from his vote against it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Anti "Iraq" war is not the same as anti-war. But I'm sure you knew that. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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