Obama cheerleaders. Obama haters.

[cali]

It's not that simple here. Most folks posting at DU don't fall into either camp, and that's why those labels are largely inaccurate. And yet they persist. Most people here, I believe, both have some criticism for Obama and generally support him. Are there a handful who either "hate" Obama or are "cheerleaders" for him without any discernment? Sure, but they aren't the majority of the community, so it's a false dividing line that does nothing to further discussion of the issues.

The word cheerleader has no replaced the verboten "Obama bot", but the meaning is the same. I'm not sure what has replaced the verboten "Obama hater", but I'm sure someone will tell me.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. I think each person here has their individual measuring stick for Obama, based upon

their outrage factor for the past 8 years, their understanding of how things can/can't/should change, etc. For me, both the President and his wife impress me on so many levels, and I am hopeful, but do understand how the cards are stacked against change in this country on so many levels. I think that measured criticism is important - but the tent is huge.....so what I am seeing at DU is pretty much what I expected to see.

[Vickers]

2. I was accused of being an Obama cheerleader in the last few days.

If they only knew!

:spank:

It's not that I blindly support Obama (or anyone...OK, maybe the Ramones), it's just that putting simplistic labels on this or that muddies the waters, artificially makes things black or white, is divisive, and, frankly, seems somewhat Repukian (see? SEE? I'm guilty of it, too!).

[lazer47]

3. It may not be the "Beer "you hoped for, but it is still the best "Beer" you can buy

Simplistic,, but true

[Fumesucker]

4. Yeah, the place was a lot more unified when all you had to do to be a good Dem..

Was bash bushie..

We have seen the pendulum swing from one side to the other and a lot of us think all we are seeing is the slowing of the swing to the right, not a cessation of movement in that most odious of directions let alone a reversal.

In politics, like business, you only get what you ask for, asking is not a guarantee of receiving but not asking is a guarantee of not getting.

[cali]

5. that's all very well, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my OP

which has jsckshit to do with being a good dem or not.

[Fumesucker]

9. The point being ..

That "being a good Dem" is taken very differently by different people.

Some people take it in the sense that you must accentuate the similarities between yourself and the particular Dem in office and cheer them on so it can be seen that they have a lot of "support".

Those who subscribe to my theory though take it that they must accentuate the differences between themselves and the politician they wish to influence in order that their issue might get noticed and their wishes noted (they're "asking" for something).

The first group sees the second group as "haters" and the second sees the first as "cheerleaders", it's almost impossible for the two sides to not see each other in this way.

Edited to change a word..

[lazer47]

6. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

I don't believe that,,The results of what we are seeing will take a lot more time than I think any of us were prepared to accept,,,Cheerleader or Hater the change has to come, it has no choice..

[bertman]

12. Change will come, for sure. But will it be for the best? That is the question.

[Buzz Clik]

7. The problem stems from DUers' insistence at posting the same stuff multiple times per hour.

The first time we encounter a strong opinion about something Obama has done or has not done, people are willing to put some effort into a considered response. They're willing to do it again the next time they see the same opinion on the same subject. But 10 times per hour? 100 times per day? Hundreds of threads on the same subject in a given week?

It's beyond ridiculous, and it happens every time.

(It would also be a different story if it were only Obama. But, we've seen Pelosi pilloried in fine Freeper fashion, and Webb was slimed yesterday.)

[AspenRose]

10. Maybe it's time to go back to the three-post limit rule again?

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

11. Format

To some extent, I find that the format of DU lends itself to this problem. Unless a particular post has alot of activity, it tends to "roll down" the lastest dicussion page quickly. The result is that as people show up to discuss something, they "restart" the same topic over and over because it doesn't appear on the first page of the "lastest" page. Topics that make it to the "greatest" page can avoid this problem to some extent. But even there, an alternate problem exists in that if one takes any time to make a well thought out and complete response, by the time you hit the "post button" 4 other people have made effectively the same points.

I do think to some extent the situation could be improved if there was less cheerleading and more discussion. I am often struck by topics that seem to make the "greatest" page merely because of the volume of "I agree nt" or K&R kind of posts. Maybe "greatest" ought to be measured by "depth" not just breadth.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Your point is well taken for normal days and normal topics.

We see it frequently -- some story is compelling and is re-posted soon after the original thread quoting the same article rolls off the front page. DU traffic can be dizzying.

Most of the grizzled veterans of DU understand that phenomenon and ignore duplicates, but just last week we had four of the five on the greatest threads all bemoaning Obama's reversal about the torture photos. Yet, new threads were being generated one after another on the same subject.

========

I will confess to having tossed out the term Obama-hater for the very first time this weekend at a newby who introduced himself with gem:

It depends what you mean by "is".

It's quite obvious that Mr. Obama likes moonshine over mirco-brewery beer. The old stuff that is aged seems more tasty to him presently, aNd we thought wholesale change was near...

Despite the poorly crafted metaphor, the message was obvious.

[zipplewrath]

8. Arguing against the hyperbole

To some extent, what you are doing is arguing against hyperbole. Characterization, stereotyping, and/or broad generalizations will always have some degree of inaccuracy. Expressions like Obama bot and the like are basically an attempt at characterizations, and really in the limit they are intended to be hyperbolic in nature. It is true that in politics hyperbole tends to be used for the exact definition of the word, "...for the purpose of emphasis". I often caution people that they check, when using hyperbole, to ensure they have a point, or successful argument, in the absence of the hyperbole. Alternately, it is also reasonable to ask if a counter argument has any validity if it argues the underlying point, not just the hyperbole.

Cheerleaders, or "haters" are expressions intended to challenge an argument based upon its very basis. i.e. is the support, or dispute based upon an actual disagreement with the policy, or is it based upon a basic trust, or lack thereof, in the President. I tend to agree that the terms get used often to basically announce that one has no intention of disputing a point. People just assign a title as a basis for not making a counter argument. But I do see the terms used as an attempt to challenge an position, a challenge to base it upon something more than effectively blind trust, or an inherent perceived weakness on the part of the president. I'm most likely to use these kinds of expression in discussions with the "chess master" folks, who claim we can't understand the presidents actions because of a perceived brilliance on his part of "always being 3 moves ahead of us checkers players". It is an apt description, even if it indulges in a bit of hyperbole.

[bertman]

13. Your first paragraph says it all, Cali. Thank you.

[ecstatic]

14. "Obama hater" was previously

PUMA, I believe. hehe

[Buzz Clik]

16. PUMAs were self-defined. Obama-hater is a bit of a different usage.