Dear Obama supporters who are mystified as to why people mistrust his "hope, change, unity" talk

[jpgray]

Obama is very intelligent and charismatic, and is an excellent orator. I can understand why smart, reasonable people believe he represents the above values. I would never dismiss your judgment of Obama as silly, stupid or unreasonable. I just disagree. Here's why:

His platform is moderate, not indicative of transformative change. It does not represent such a change any more than do the platforms of the other candidates. Based on what I've heard from him and what I've read from his site:

-He does not commit to a withdrawal from Iraq within the presumptive two presidential terms.

-He does not support gay marriage

-He does not propose a universal health care plan.

-He does not directly engage corporate interests in his rhetoric or his platform.

His call for "unity" is unrealistic, if he wishes to enact any of his more progressive policies. Consider the vote to restore Habeas Corpus. It failed, along a mostly party-line vote. This is one of the most treasured and respected pillars of law in history. What "unity" can you find in that vote? What "bipartisan" compromise is desirable to you? I don't believe Obama will freely compromise away his values under GOP pressure, but if he truly wanted to be bipartisan, that's exactly what he would have to do. Therefore I dismiss these calls as a marketing tactic, not as an accurate representation of how he will behave in office. We don't want a president who constantly compromises with the GOP on the issues--on almost all important policy they need to be confronted and defeated. Again, I don't believe Obama will wilt under GOP pressure, I believe his "bipartisan" talk is solely for marketing purposes.

Hope. This one he can fulfill, if he defeats the GOP nominee. But then, hope will return to this country if -any- of our candidates succeed.

In other words: Obama is not a bad candidate. He doesn't have a bad platform. He has been very successful with his rhetoric, and he -has- convinced people who disagree with him on policy to cut him slack based on his rhetoric. That's a useful and powerful ability. However, speaking for myself, it's hard to see "hope, change, unity" as anything other than platitudes, which all politicians more or less attempt to lay claim to. The reality of our situation makes "unity" impossible if you desire "hope" and "change" in progressive terms--the GOP will fight him tooth and nail on every last progressive plank. As a marketing approach, it can be successful, but don't ask me to pretend I believe such platitudes reflect either his platform or the current political reality.

[AX10]

1. It's a mania.

They are so upset (rightfully so) about what has happened under Bush's reign, that they want to feel good again. Obama makes them feel good, but that's about it.

[AndyA]

4. Kind of like a drug addict looking for a quick fix.

It will eventually kill them, but they'll feel good for a little while... :eyes:

[AX10]

5. True.

[KittyWampus]

23. So Clinton supporters are like battered wives. Bill nearly killed off the Dem party

and abandoned many of our core issues... but he says "I love you don;t leave" and you come back for more abuse.

[avaistheone1]

47. Obama happy talks reminds me of Reagan trickle-down economics

I really don't want to get pissed on anymore.

[BenDavid]

6. I agree AX10....Just like a revival preacher that gets the crowd

all clapping hands and shouting and telling them rain is a coming if it is dry weather. They will have more money in their pockets if they give him 10 dollars and to keep his ministry afloat, and they will be blessed back 10 fold and then his folks come round and ask for yo money and they gladly hand it over....car note money, house note money, grocery money all given away because the preacher is inspirational.....

Oh and another thing about these 10 fold preachers that tell folks to give them a hundred dollars and you will be blessed 10 fold back...so in other words the giver will be given back a 1000 dollars at some point in time.....let me ask this question. If the peacher believes this, then why not give himself 10,000 dollars and he be blessed 10 fold with a 100, 000 dollars and not ask the poor folks for their money?

[jpgray]

7. It's not so much a mania as it is great marketing for a moderate platform

And it does win people over who would otherwise disagree with him based on policy.

[Tweed]

2. -He does not directly engage corporate interests in his rhetoric or his platform.

I suggest you get your ears checked


"-He does not commit to a withdrawal from Iraq within the presumptive two presidential terms.

-He does not support gay marriage

-He does not propose a universal health care plan."

Who are you voting for?

[jpgray]

10. I can only assume we have different ideas about what it means to confront corporate interests

[Egnever]

3. You're sad

his technology platform will change everything. READ IT!

your fucking same tired meme is growing old. just cause you refuse to look at it does not mean it os not there.

And its way better than not bad its transformative.

[jpgray]

13. Cursing and insults aside, those are the reasons people mistrust the platitudes

What would the "bipartisan" compromise on that technology platform look like, I wonder? Our Congress has made many such compromises. On which issues would you bring in the GOP for all that unity?

[Egnever]

19. http://www.usaspending.gov/

He has allreadsy started doing it. Its right there for your eyes to see!

So you move the goal posts first its what change? now its can he actually make that change.

What will it be now that I you can see part of that platform alrready implimented with republican support?

I cant wait to hear it.

[jpgray]

21. That's your example of transformative change?

Let's just say my goalposts are a little farther out than yours. On Iraq, where's the change? On universal health care, where's the change? On corporate power, where's the change? He provides no more for these than do the other candidates. And in some cases, he provides less. And again, do you seriously believe he will pursue bipartisan compromise versions of all these planks? Or is it a platitude, as I have said?

[Egnever]

26. Thats the start

you read the rest I am not going to hold your hand. You already have your dog in this race and you wont admit anything positive about their challengers I get it.

and of you argument is he is the same as the rest then it comes down to who can motivate the most people to get the changers implemented. John ain't going to do it and hillary will be up against a reinvigorated republican base from the minute she gets our nod so she sure as hell ain't going to get it done.

That leaves the guy who brings the republicans and the independents to the table and thats Barrack all the way so yet again He is the best choice.

I think ethics and open government have been his driving force his whole career. What was the first thing he fought for when getting to the senate? Ethics reform. What is usaspending? Open government!

This is his driving motivation and that is why he is my candidate. Half of the shenanigans that go on in washington go on because the public is unaware of them. Obama says it well we don't need more heat we need more light!

Yeap I fully believe bringing light to the darkened corridors of congress will propel change like we have never seen it and it is where he stands heads and shoulders above the others. In a race where many of the positions are equal this one pulls him ahead.

[jpgray]

31. Fair enough. Do you see how one could be cynical about such promises, though?

He does have ability. However, so many politicians have promised these things.

[Egnever]

41. Sure I don't know how you can help but be cynical

We have been hearing this same shit for years. The difference with this guy is he has been delivering it. He hasn't just talked about it. His track record so far has been fighting for ethics and open government I find no reason to think he wont continue that.

If it was just a line he spewed I would be with you on this. It isn't though its something he has continuously fought for throughout his public career. SO I laid my cynicism aside one more time because I see a candidate that not only talks the talk but has been walking the walk.

If he hadn't gone from editing the harvard law review to working the streets in Chicago for little or no gain. I might be inclined to believe it was just rhetoric. He could have done anything, he chose to go to work for the poor and for justice. Time and again when given the choice the guy has chosen principle over dough. It goes a long way with me to-wards letting my guard down once again and believing in a candidate who truly does want to return this country to the democracy it should be by empowering the american public to once again get involved in their government.

So yeap it would be totally easy to say its just not possible theres too many in power that would be against it. I guess I still have HOPE. Thank god its backed up by a real record of accomplishing just the things he is saying he wants to do.

[jpgray]

44. I can see some good things in his history--teaching constitutional law is one

Community activism is another. His obvious ability is yet another.

[sandnsea]

32. I just answered this a half hour ago

and here he is, posting the same shit again. :crazy:

[Zorra]

8. Dupe delete

[Zorra]

9. Oh, just engage in Reagan-like sunny optimism and everything will

be peachy if only you will just believe that it is.

Try not to be so accurate, sensible, logical, and realistic - it will get you nowhere politically.

Lalalalalalalalalala oooo, nice cliff....wheeee, I can fly!

[Jane Austin]

11. You just don't get it, do you?

I hope you do, some day.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

12. It's irrational. They are either too young to understand reality or blind.

[jpgray]

17. I disagree. I'm not going to belittle his supporters, many of whom are reasonable and intelligent

[nonconformist]

14. Great post. nt

[pat_k]

15. "hope, change, unity" through appeasement. . .

. . .is more than misguided. It is damaging. It hides truth (i.e., the fact that Bush and Cheney have turned the USA into a war criminal nation that spies on its own citizens).

Sadly, Obama is another victim of the beltway sphinter. He is parroting Republican propaganda (Reagan myth; Dems have no ideas; and worst of all, he buys into the fantasy of "bipartisanship" with fascists. For anti-fascists, there can no "compromising" with fascists. There is only fighting or appeasing.

And in our current crisis, iimpeachment is the only battleground that means a damn thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2771107&mesg_id=2771107">"The Fantasy of Bipartisanship" (Posted Jan-26-08)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3996527&mesg_id=3996817">Americans aren't looking for leaders dedicated to appeasement. (Posted Jan-08-08)

[amborin]

27. Obama is naive at best, very scary at worst

this whole "togetherness" crap

big bad corporations tried it with union leaders

"togetheness" "jointness" etc.....

all the while the corps were screwing the union reps and destroying workers' rights

Obama plays right into neo-con, neo-liberal hands

[laconicsax]

16. Thank you

[Levgreee]

18. UMMM he promotes all of those things

sheesh, this is pitiful...

[tishaLA]

20. you're thinking about it differently than Obama though

he constantly emphasizes that change starts from the masses, not from an oracle on high, i.e., a decider. so the unity of which he speaks comes from the people, who can fuel transformation by pressuring the legislative agenda in a more inclusive, empathetic direction. i agree that the gop will fight him tooth and nail, which is why people, and not organizations, have to lead. every organization, no matter how oriented toward the people nonetheless needs a (charismatic)leader to use the bully pulpit and serve as a spokesperson for the transformative vision; this is the position obama fills.

i would like to talk about the policy issues right now, but i have an injured finger and i'm typing, quite poorly, with only one hand.

[jpgray]

24. I've heard many a politician say they will change the atmosphere in this way

Obama does have ability, but do you blame me for being a bit cynical? I will of course support him in the GE, should he net the nomination.

[tishaLA]

34. i understand the cynicism

i suffer from it too....and this forum doesn't help. but i think some politicians CAN use a kind of populism--and i think our pundit class is missing the populism inherent in obama's message--to shape a legislative agenda.

again, i have to apologize for an incomplete answer, but my finger is killing me.

[ArkySue]

48. W promised to change Washington too

And Boy Howdy, did he! Ugh.

[JAbuchan08]

53. no more "recieved wisdom"

commonly known as "conventional wisdom"

[DianaForRussFeingold]

22. 'It's Perception' Edwards may be the real deal -- Obama????

Obama?
For example, John McCain and Barack Obama chose not to vote on Kyl/Lieberman
"By a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and ” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”

We have absolutely no evidence Obama would have even voted, let alone vote NO to WAR with Iraq!

However, when he actually did have a chance, to vote NO to WAR--

Obama and another candidate (McCain) played it politically safe--
they didn't even show up! Lieberman is Obama's mentor and I have this
sinking feeling he will pick him as vice president --would help him get (Reagan)
GOP votes... Guess who he might pick for secretary of Defense?
McCain? Guliani? After all "Republicans are the party of 'ideas'"


'Did you get Rommney giving Obama's Republican ideas comment'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4191592

'Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) didn't vote.'
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/breaking-lieberman-kyls-iran-amendment-passes
edited to add... I 'HOPE' we are wrong!

[cali]

25. You are sounding increasingly sour grapish with each of your

anti-Obama posts. Even if they are cloaked in a semblance of "fairness".

Just briefly:

He supports federal benefits for civil unions. YOUR candiate doesn't support anything greater- if as much.

Universal Health Care: He's said repeatedly that if he could start from scratch he'd prefer single payer. And neither JE or HRC supports truly Universal health care either.

Nonsense. Educate yourself.

As for the rest, you can't do a thing if you don't get nominated and elected. JE can't get nominated. That's just where it's at. Obama stands an excellent chance. And a very good chance of winning the general. He has a more liberal/progressive history than either of the other two, and much as you may disparage it, inspiring people and building a large coalition are hugely important.

[jpgray]

29. Again, how does that represent transformative change?

How will he effect that change if he passes it via bipartisan compromise?

I've seen time and time again Obama supporters wondering aloud why people don't seem to "get" Obama's rhetoric. I'm offering people a reasonable explanation of why, without insults and without belittling their candidate. If that's sour grapes, fair enough.

[cali]

36. Oh, I don't think you're quite seeing the tone of your posts. If it had just

been a couple of posts, that would have been one thing, but it hasn't been.

I've never wondered why others don't get it, so perhaps using that broad brush isn't useful.

First of all, let's assume that he'll have a dem Congress to work with, and it's quite reasonable to assume that he'll have a Senate with 54 to 56 dems. That changes the entire dynamic of the Senate. When you have 55 in the majority, it become far, far harder for the opposition to filibuster, and far easier to peel off a votes from the republicans. That's really all that needs to be done to pass progressive legislation there. The House is even easier to deal with due to the rules. Things like Iraq troop withdrawal, Habeas restoration, SCHIP expansion etc, will be a breeze. Health care may be harder but it's completely doable.

And the more he has the American people behind him, the more the flexible the republicans in Congress will be.

Now tell me, how do you see JE accomplishing what he wants to accomplish. I've yet to see one single JE supporter explain that.

[jpgray]

45. The tone of -my- posts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4222994&mesg_id=4223138

So far as I know, I have yet to dismiss/insult/bully someone for having an opinion. I find it instructive that viewing the Clintons' attacks as a turn-off raises no hackles with you, yet finding both Obama's -and- Clinton's behavior disappointing brings out the insults. I think you should consider if the stakes on DU are really high enough to justify that kind of animosity, and whether it's worth taking things so personally.

As for your post, I agree that we will -probably- do well in congressional elections, but why would that only serve Obama? Or do you believe that we would only do well with Obama?

[jlake]

33. Get a new line. Sour grapes doesn't address a single issue.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

37. I think we all have a right to know the truth beyond the "perception"

If Obama wins the nom,we will have to defend this .... Please provide links to prove this wrong!
Honest to God,I want to feel good about him!

"The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/wobama13.xml

"This story is a big eye opener about Obama's philosophical commitment to healthcare.
His wife is earning $300,000 from a hospital administration job that essentially amounts to PR work--
--"Chicago University Hospital Regularly turns away patients with no health insurance and made numerous patient dumping settlements.
"Community Outreach" director/VP was to get unpaid volunteers to go through the Emergency ward to "refer" unisured and non emergency patients to other clinics.
Her role at the UCH seems to be a polite way to have folks removed from the waiting rooms."

"She provides a happy friendly famous face for denial of care and showing the indigent the door."
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2006/10/hospital_positi.html

"in response to a newspaper investigation, he said he was unaware that his broker had bought $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose leading investors included some of his biggest political donors."
He has also apologised for his "boneheaded error" in striking a property deal with Tony Rezko, a Chicago Democrat operative facing a federal indictment."

[jlake]

28. Couldn't agree more.

[sandnsea]

30. Yeah I answered this a half hour ago

And you just keep posting the same shit, over and over and over. It isn't going to miraculously become a reality just because you repeat it over and over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4222364&mesg_id=4222620

[Bonobo]

35. From an Obama supporter: Your analysis is one of the best I have read.

Without giving your post a deep consideration, as I have just read it, I will for the time being give just my first opinion of your analysis.

I think you have left out the fact that people that are good at politics (which is to say the art of getting people to do what YOU want them to do without them realizing it) are able to accomplish surprising goals simply be allowing an opponent to save face while you negotiate for what you need.

I think you also forget the fact that people are not always one thing. Republicans CAN become Democrats when they realize it is in their best interest, and they do. Homophobes may realize the error of their way, Racists can overcome their racism. It happens.

[jpgray]

43. Those are good points. And I completely agree that changing the discourse is what we need to do

A talent for rhetoric, and for getting people to listen even if they disagree on policy is incredibly important. I know it goes against GD-P "code." but I'm not saying he's a bad candidate with this thread. I think he'll do very well in the GE should he win the nom. I'm just trying to articulate what people find unsettling about his rhetoric, which others find so inspiring. It's a disconnect that really seems to generate a lot of ill-will, and hopefully with some reasonable discussion we can better understand why each side sees it the way they do. As opposed to hurling insults at each other. :D

[Tulkas]

38. Caroline Kennedy Said It Better Than Any Of Us Can

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4220166


There is your answer


Deal with it

[stickernation]

39. Obama's endorsements are most disturbing at all to me.

Barack Obama seems vacuous in debates, and when articulate people who write well write things in his favor, i have to ask: where are they pulling this from? they're arguing for us all to drink the kool-aid, in very individualistic and articulate ways, but WHY CAN'T BARACK SPEAK THIS WAY? I frankly get that Reagan queasiness watching him - like I get the feeling his books were ghostwritten ! that letter to Kenya was ghostwritten ! Like, THIS GUY CAN'T REALLY *WRITE* !!! He can't think on his feet - which is why he can't really debate. These are my fears ! This makes me feel like - what a PHONY, he digs Reagan (not his policies! fine, not his policies, his "way of bringing people together") because HE, TOO, BARACK OBAMA THAT IS, IS AN ACTOR !!!! and that scares me because I SEE WHO IS WRITING HIS SCRIPT and I don't TRUST them !

That and GET US THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ RIGHT NOW MAN !!! Can't you at least COMMIT to THAT ? I mean that's even a POPULAR issue ! So the charisma is not washing with me, I am not moved to tears, I am instead INCREDIBLY CONCERNED that the Dems are about to elect someone other than JRE and I am about to double and triple my own personal efforts to campaign on JRE's behalf. Won't you join me ?

Obama fans:
* explain me WHY no committed position on the pullout.
* explain to me WHY the shady connections with lobbyists and like bad energy companies and such.

Shouldn't he be free of this bullshit ? Sure JRE has that Vanguard connection, but he has spoken about it to KO (i think that was where I saw it) and I was satisfied with his response. Will I be that satisfied with Obama's response to Clinton's allegations? Given my history of not being able to connect with Obama's "charisma" I am really skeptical.

Some of you say, "he was an ACTIVIST !"

Well isn't that what happened in the 1970's ? Didn't the hippie activists sell out and become like marketing consultants ? are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN this hasn't happened to "vow of public service" Obama ?


- s

[aein]

40. people with college educations are supporting Obama n/t

[jpgray]

42. Many well-educated people see him as the best candidate. I'm not saying its a matter of education

It's more a matter of taste and trust, I think.

[ShadowLiberal]

46. His voting record speaks for itself, but here's why his campaign promises are different

Obama's voting record speaks for itself in terms of how liberal he is. He's ranked the 10th most liberal member of congress, but it's true he isn't so bold to speak out as a die hard extreme liberal on those issues you list, but let me explain why he's said what he's said on those issues.

In the past yeah Obama didn't commit to a full troop withdrawal, but lately he's been committed to what's about as realistic as we can get, troops in Iraq only doing stuff like guarding our embassy, and going after terrorists in there, and I think maybe training Iraqi soldiers, I forget. This is what the American people want, and Obama has to say he'll keep our soldiers fighting terrorists, otherwise we'll continue to lose on the national security issue.

On gay marriage, I will admit I don't know if Obama personally supports it, but I have no doubt that he supports other important rights for gays, like joining the army, etc. Also, the sad fact of the matter is being a presidential candidate in a general election advocating gay marriage is a BAD place to be because a little under then 2/3's of America isn't for gay marriage, and the voters decide who to elect, not just the democratic party. However, polls also show that support for gays in other areas like civil unions, and child care rights, etc, has consistently been going up lately, as has acceptance of gays. Like it or not blacks didn't win their most important rights overnight, they had plenty of small victories before they got their big ones, gays probably need plenty of small victories before getting a big one in civil unions or gay marriage.

On Health care please, while Obama's plan won't cover everyone, it covers most people. I will admit though, I don't care much about health care, so maybe another Obama supporter could put up (or already has) a stronger argument then this.

On engaging corporations, again Obama is playing a more general election strategy. While Obama is not talking about corporate interests and such corrupting us and doing bad things, he consistently attacks lobbyists for much of the same charges (though not completely the same yeah). Most people hate lobbyists, but are more neutral or split on corporations. Obama's stance on lobbyists shows that he won't let corporate interests try to control Washington with their lobbyists.

[lynch03]

49. And HILLARY is the only other viable candidate

And based on the issues you mentioned in the op, you think she's the better choice? Do you think she supports gay marriage? You think the clinton's are anti-corporate? I can see edwards supporters being skeptical of obama, but when it comes to clinton vs obama, obama is just the better progressive choice. Clinton is the corporatist, hawkish, status quo - she's displayed bad judgment on foreign policy, over and over again. And she's portrayed as the "experienced" candidate while obama is the naive one :rolleyes: I don't get why people attack obama he's both inspirational and has a better record then clinton

[ErnestoG]

50. Dear Hillary Supporters

-She does not commit to a withdrawal from Iraq within the presumptive two presidential terms.

-She does not support gay marriage.

-She does not propose a universal health care plan that does not include private interests.

-She does not directly engage corporate interests in her rhetoric or her platform.



Next?

[VotesForWomen]

51. well said. obama supporters should be voting kucinich if they really want 'change.' the fact that o

obama has been allowed by the powers-that-be to be a top candidate for the nomination all but guarantees that he won't be making any big changes.

[Yael]

52. Well stated. I also think

that people are so disgusted with the * Administration that they want the nightmare to just go away. Obama promises to make it painless and pretty and that resonates with people. I know it can't happen, that it will be a monumental fight -- and that is one of the reasons I can't get behind him. It sounds good, but simply isn't realistic.

As long as my candidate chooses to be in this race, that dose of reality will continue to be injected into the debates. That is a good thing...

[realFedUp]

54. nicely argued.

The media and the other candidate's really haven't
vetted this guy enough. He certainly has written
enough material about himself and I'm sure the
Republican party has investigated him a lot more
thoroughly.