Should We Now Admit That McCain's Attacks On Obama's Associations With Radicals Were Fair?

[Median Democrat]

I find these left, left of center, right of center, right, progressive, centrist, and DLC arguments incredibly uninformative, yet many folks continue to debate these labels, and attack Obama's choices based on their associations with organizations with the DLC. In making these attacks, many DUers sound just like right wing hacks who attacked Obama as a radical leftist based on his "associations" with terrorists and radical leftists.

The MSM commentaries are all over the map with some describing Obama's choices as non-idealogical while others describe them in non-idealogical terms.

Are the folks raising these debates over labels just closet right wingers who are trying to start a flame war. Or, are liberals no different than their right wing counterparts in terms of attacking Democrats based on labels while ignoring a person's actual proposals and record. The right wing characterize Obama's tax policies as socialistic. Some DUers are now snearing that Obama is no progressive.

The person who is right is President Obama himself who ridiculed efforts to pigeon hole voters and politicians into red or blue. Ultimately, Obama's success is not going to depend on labels. Its going to debate on whether the American people are safe and employed. That should be the bottom line, particularly given the current economic and foreign policy situation.

If we can avoid another foreign policy melt down, and if the economy is improving and growing for most Americans, not just the richest 1 percent, then count me happy. You purists can enjoy your idealogy. I am less ambitious. I just want to keep my job and keep my family safe. If these two goals are accomplished, then I count the Obama Presidency a success. If not, then I will listen to what the other candidates have to say. I don't have the luxury of idealogical purity on either side of the equation.

[happychatter]

1. Yah! But vill da tr-r-rains run on time?

:patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

2. I am recommending without a long comment, as your take is mine as well.

and I thank you for it.

[Radical Activist]

3. Its the same argument.

The argument has the same level of credibility in both cases.

[Lerkfish]

4. since the democratic party is a big tent, not every faction will be equally happy.

it depends on the percentage of their core issues that are/will be addressed.

I don't think its fair to smear with the exact same brush rightwingers and the left on this issue since the motivations are vastly different. The right wing accused Obama of palin around with terrorists and radicals because they wanted to instill fear and steer people away from him as a candidate.
The left voted him in high numbers, but are concerned that their core issues will be adequately addressed.

I find equating the two as disingenuous.

[alwysdrunk]

5. Hell No. Being DLC is way different than knowing an anti-war radical.

I'm sorry but the Bill Ayers "association" attacks were total bullshit. DUers complaints about cabinets picks may not be rock-solid, but they are not total bull shit. The Bill Ayers shit was just an excuse to use the word "terrorist in the same sentence with Obama.

For my take on the "association" shit, see Colin Powell's statements during the Meet the Press endorsement.

About DUers complaining about this or that politician, they are politicians with stated positions on policies and voting records to show what they believe in. If you are a member of the DLC, then your are signing your name to a list of policy positions that you mostly endorse.

Now I'm a moderate, and am mostly happy with the cabinet Obama has chosen. But comparing those who are not happy with the spin doctor strategists in the McCain campaign is not fair at all.

[Median Democrat]

7. I Am Not Referring To All Liberal Critics, Just The One Line Label Hacks

Whose only real criticisms are Obama is not a liberal/progressive/change, etc., or Obama is a DLC/moderate/right of center, etc.

I love reading informed criticism of Obama's decisions and picks. Unfortunately, the bulk of discussion on DU tends to revolve around the tossing of labels and associations, which is remarkably similar to the arguments raised by the McCain campaign. McCain's campaign pretty much centered on repeatedly calling Obama a socialist. Today, some DUers tend to repeatedly chant that Obama is not a true liberal or progressive, or that he is "center right" or a "Clinton clone." These one line threads, then are typically followed by lengthy discussions of what the label in question entails.

My take is that these semantic debates are both irrelevant and unproductive. So far, I am pretty satisfied with Obama's choices, and while DUers and the MSM are already prematurely making bolding statements regarding Obama's presidency even before it has begun such as Politico boldly declaring that Obama has failed to fulfill his campaign promises, and Yahoo asking why hasn't Obama's election
reduced terrorism, I would hope that DUers would wait until he is inaugerated before offering similar judgments.

[creeksneakers2]

8. You are right

Substance matters far more than symbols.

[JimGinPA]

9. I Like Your Avatar

Did you make it?

[alwysdrunk]

15. It was on some web gallery of user-made Obama images

Flickr maybe? I don't remember.

[Johonny]

6. So as long as you get yours

F your neighbor? Isn't that the mentality that got us where we are.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. "no foreign policy melt down, and if the economy is improving and growing for most Americans..."

Yeah, that sounds pretty selfish.

[AZBlue]

11. Yes, some are closet right wingers trying to start a flame war.

Others were Clinton supporters during the primaries who never forgave Obama for beating her and will jump at the first chance to "legitimately" criticize him now. The rest are just bitter people who MUST be unhappy and complain in order to get through the day.

[Median Democrat]

12. It Is Easy To Forget The RNC's Efforts To Mobilize RW Types To Troll On Liberal Boards

It is easy to post repetitious, non-substantive name calling anonymously. Indeed, a small number of such trolls can render a message board unreadable. Indeed, while some of us blame Hillary supporters, a lot of these so-called supporters were of the Rush Limbaugh, Operation Chaos variety who blindly followed Rush's directions to try to sow discord among liberals and democrats.

I have no problem with critical, but constructive discussion. For example, while I think Hillary is brilliant, and that her influence on Bill is often underestimated, I also think that Hillary is not a strong manager, as noted in a recent Newsweek article saying that Hillary needs a boring no-drama, burearcrat as her Deputy to run the day to day operations of the State Department. Hillary likes to surround herself with accomplished, but egotistical, staff, BUT she is loathe to resolve the inevitable clashes among her staff as noted in the Atlantic article discussing the inner workings of her campaign. Hopefully, Hillary recogizes her weaknesses, and appoints a solid manager, rather than a brilliant but abrasive type like Richard Holbrooke.

See, I have no problem with criticizing the Obama's selections, but just move beyond namecalling. It didn't work in the sandbox, and its not going to work here.

[gravity]

13. We should judge Obama by what he accomplishes

All these purity tests and labels don't mean anything. Anyone can fit a label, but it takes someone extraordinary to lead this country out of this mess and fix our problems.

[judasdisney]

14. If you walk into a nest of hornets, do you need to wear a garment of hornets as a shield?

[Hepburn]

16. Absolutely not!

It was and still is total bullshit.