Anyone else agree that this whole "Dems vs Obama" is just the media playing us?

[phleshdef]

I've read several articles about this today and seen many quotes from Senate Dems and people from the Obama transition team.

To read the headlines you would think the whole party has turned on Obama. But when you read the actual meat of what people in both camps are saying, these seem like rather minor detail disagreements and both sides seem very open to making changes and very positive that the outcome will be good.

As I said in another thread, if this were Bush and Senate Republicans, the media would probably be praising them all for the wonderful effort of cooperation taking place between the executive and legislative branch. It would be hailed as American government operating at its finest.

Here is the reality of things. Reid, Pelosi and Obama get along pretty well. There is not some bitter battle going on concerning Obama's initial economic proposal. There isn't some huge rift here. Its just a matter of different leaders having different opinions on how to carry all parts of this plan out.

Obama has a REPUTATION for being a great listener and a person that takes to heart what those that disagree with him are saying. He has a reputation for being flexible, thoughtful and well intentioned.

I say we stop letting the media have its way here. I mean when I read a headline that sais "Dems BLAST Obama's economic plan" and then read the article and notice there isn't anything being said that should be considered "blasting", then I know I am smelling bullshit. They are trying to create the illusion of a massive conflict that doesn't exist. Its silliness but also par for the course.

[madfloridian]

1. I do not agree.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3381

I think there has been too much that makes it pretty obvious.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I think there's a lot of posturing going on.

But nothing serious.

[Phx_Dem]

28. I agree. They may be trying to grab a little of the O-spotlight.

Or . . . . when I heard John Kerry speak out against Obama's stimulous plan, I wondered if some of the Dems might be providing cover by "breaking" with Obama so the Republicans might not be so quick to do so. If all the Dems will strongly behind Obama's stimulous plan, the Republicans would find something to bitch about just so they aren't seen as jumping on the O-lovetrain without any opposition. I don't know. Just thinking.

I do think the stimulus package (or a variation of it) will end up passing with a large majority.

[Cha]

41. There's most definetly

that.

[Lucky 13]

3. I think at least partially... that and people like to complain.

I think another part of it is that people worked so hard to see that he got elected, that they now feel they are "owed" something by Obama. Obama was elected by a hugely diverse 53%+ of the American public... he cannot be all things to all people. And some people just can't seem to handle that.

Another thing that people fail to realize is that "complaining" does not constitute and effective strategy. Bitching about who he chooses for what post AFTER the decision has been made is futile. Wasting energy lashing out over minor decisions that will have no real lasting consequence is foolish.

He's not a freakin GOD. His mere presence is not going to solve all of our problems and he likely disagrees with most of us about SOMETHING. So I really wish people would shut up and get back to the real work of changing this country - organizing, fundraising, strategizing... Bitching and moaning is a fucking waste of time and is the favorite tool of perpetual victims and malcontents.

[terisan]

9. So far Obama has turned on his base, He is the Wall Street PE and perhaps has been so all along.

Larry Summers sent him out to read a supply side economic plan full of initiatives from the nineties.

Unless Obama makes a big turnaround after he finishes the inaugural ball partying with the big money people, I think the Change and Hope voters have been taken. The lesson is get it in writing and read the fine print.

Organizing, fundraising, and strategizing for what???????????? secret renditions? supply side bailouts? homophobic agendas? Wall Street Execs

You have no place at the decision-making table . They do , courtesy of Obama. Passivity is the duty of a subject, not a citizen in a free country.

Better a citizen malcontent than a Fundraiser for Multimillionaires, or an organizer for Billionaire Rights, or a Strategizer Against the Citizens of a Democratic Republic.

Larry Summers needs to be thrown out on his butt, followed by any cheerleader for "Spy on the People" program.

Sorry Obamamaniacs, I can't take on any more public debt nor can my kids. If you are so certain of vindication please promise to pay "my"share of these giveaways-----and I want that in writing and notarized.

Senator Harkin apparently knows the fix is in.

The people are owed. They are owed honesty, transparency, and some campaign promises kept. This is shaping up to be George Bush's third term.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Phx_Dem]

30. ROLF

George Bush's third term?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Lucky 13]

39. I think you need to calm down.

The man has not spent ONE DAY in office and you are calling him Bush's third term? BUSH - the international terrorist, murderer, liar, and shredder of the Constitution? That is the most nonsensical bullshit I've ever read and your post makes you look like a raving lunatic. I am honestly concerned for you.

Your problem is you are CHOOSING to only focus on the things he does that makes you upset instead of recognizing he's gonna do some things you like and some things you don't. He has made some moves I wouldn't have made. But he's also made some BRILLIANT moves. Appointing Steven Chu to head up Energy, for example. I think that was his greatest pick so far. You are choosing to ignore the appointments and decisions he's made that can make a real, lasting, positive change in the world.

But go ahead and give yourself an ulcer over Sanjaya Gupta, or who gives a fucking prayer, or whatever the poutrage is for the next 10 minutes. Meanwhile I'm going to be looking for ways to advance issues that are important to me... through organizing, fundraising and strategizing. Cause even though we have a democrat in office, it doesn't mean we get to stop fighting for our causes. I just choose to fight by doing something meaningful instead of gnashing my teeth and wailing into the wind.

[Cha]

43. No, he hasn't..that's just a

popular whine.

[Cha]

42. Thank you,

Lucky 13.

[leftstreet]

4. M$M framing is always either/or, us/them, FightClub Mentality

Keeps us all emotionally invested long enough to see the adverti$ement$.

[madfloridian]

5. Our party leaders are dissing one of its most important voices.

Why are you defending that?

[phleshdef]

13. I'm not defending anything because I feel there is nothing to defend. The reporting...

...seems to be making it sound much worse than what it is.

[madfloridian]

25. I so disagree. It's pretty bad.

You don't have a turning over of the party event and not invite the outgoing chairman.

It is disrespect of the highest order.

It is excusing the inexcusable.

[blm]

6. Obama declares he reads bad press not good, the OPPOSITE of Bush's need for yes-men.

Obam's establishing himself as a president who respects dissent even from his own party and no doubt in my mind that this past week has been somewhat choreographed by Obama AND the Dem lawmakers.

And why not? It's managing perception mostly for the better, imo. BushInc managed perception to sell big lies. Obama and Dems are managing it to get better bills.

[terisan]

18. So theatre instead of the promised transparency? If Obama welcomes dissent why don't you?

[blm]

34. I don't understand what you mean...I'm 100% down with transparency and dissent

I can also appreciate a bit of theater for the right reasons, and with the tax cut issue I believe the bit of theater is for the right reasons - to get the debate started at the point where Dems can flex greater influence instead of being bogged down by the certain mediaspin that they are rubberstamping Obama's plans.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I think that the Dems are doing the right thing, but that the media is reporting it

as something hostile. This may be because in the Bush administration, it was "My way or the Highway" attitude, and reporters are used to writing about in those terms.

It is a fact that the GOP wants a smaller stimulus and more tax cuts, while Dems appear to want a larger stimulus with less emphasis on tax cuts. From where I sit, it is advantageous for Obama that there be this debate and demands coming from both sides of the Aisle, and not just one side; the Repugs. This way, when they all compromise, it will be somewhere in the middle. So, to some degree, I think it is being encouraged by Obama's advisor that Democrats make objections as they see fit. Looking at Obama's presser today, he certainly didn't seem to have any problem with it, as long as the debates are NOT "used" to attempt to stall the package for only the purpose of scoring political points.

We should also note that Tax cuts come in different forms and are not always aimed at the same folks.

The fact that even some here don't even understand the difference between trickle down tax cuts (given to the wealthy and large corporations as Bush did) and tax cuts aimed at Middle and lower wage earners (which is what Obama is proposing) as not equal is troubling to some degree. We should also understand that how the tax cuts are dispensed also figure into whether they will stimulate the economy or do so, not so much.

The discussion being had is good for Democracy, and may help educate and inform those of us who need it. Unfortunately, we are also dealing with a press who likes to confuse its readers, rejects nuance, and is accustomed to portraying everything as conflicted and adversarial. still, it is good that we are having a debate about this, as the outcome of such will affect the majority of us.

[phleshdef]

15. Thanks. You articulate my point better than I did in my OP.

[Cha]

44. Thanks for that

wrapup. The media loves to have a controversary at the Dems expense.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Republicans are Borg, the corporate media believe in Borg.

If the nation were Borg, the corporate media would have continuous orgasm as this would make their job of brain washing the American People much easier.

Anytime there is a disagreement among Democratic ranks the corporate media will magnify it, because it suits their Borg purpose.

Nonetheless if the people and or their representatives don't voice their First Amendment right of free speech when they disagree with a policy, our democratic republic is weakened. If the Democratic Party silence themselves, they become the Republican Party, which is what the corporate media want, therefore the Borg win.

Thus, whether the corporate media magnify democratic criticism of democratic candidates/policies or not, we must view this as a badge of honor.

The Democratic Party can take it, whereas the Republican Party would shatter, because for the Republican Party there is no there, there.

[Cha]

45. Hey, I just said

that, too, only in one sentence.:)

"The corporate media loves to have a controversary at the Dems' expense."

[rvablue]

10. Funny how a Dem prez with a Dem Congress gets this treatment, but when it was the other way

around all we heard about was Democrats playing politics, every time they tried to stop the other side from destroying America further.

Unbelievable...but not shocking....when has it been any different.

Doesn't mean that it doesn't make me raving mad.....

[terisan]

16. Because he is acting like Bush. and we are citizens sounding the alarm. nt

[rvablue]

17. Who's acting like Bush? I have no idea what this post means? n/t

[phleshdef]

19. Obama has too many active brain cells to even be capable of such a thing.

[rvablue]

29. Capable of what...do not understand why my post is attracting so many non-sequitors??? n/t

[phleshdef]

35. I'm saying that even if Obama wanted to act like Bush, he simply isn't brain dead enough.

[rvablue]

36. I wasn't the one who said that Obama was acting like Bush, I was the one responding to it

You commented to the wrong post.

[Boomerang Diddle]

20. Who's acting like Bush? Obama?

I see no evidence of that, especially considering he hasn't even been sworn in yet.

[terisan]

23. Check out the appointments list, Fisa carryover, and Supply side plan. nt

[phleshdef]

27. Revisionist history. FISA has been around for ages. Obama supports mandatory warrants.

The appointments are much closer to a Bill Clinton.

Bush appointed cronies from his Texas days. How is Obama guilty of that. Oh right, he isn't. Talking point DEAD.

FISA is not anti-Democratic, FISA without oversight and mandatory warrants is. Obama doesn't support that. Talking point DEAD.

Its nothing close to a Bush-like administration and its embarassing to even see you type stuff like that. You are making yourself look extremely ridiculous.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Obama is not acting like Bush.......

But perhaps you are, with your simpleton pronouncement, such as it is.

[Cha]

46. Exactly, the corporate media

has an agenda and nothing will stop them..not 8 years of bush or the War on Iraq that they were responsible for.

[madfloridian]

12. It's fine to distance your party from the ones who speak out.

Then you don't have to worry about them anymore.

We donated since 2003 to campaigns and then in 2005 gave monthly to the DNC.

That's now over. If we are so easily shoved aside, if one we respect is so treated....then we are not important enough.

[Phoonzang]

14. No it's not the media. Democrats are giving the media something to latch onto and

something for the Republicans to exploit and snicker about.

[ellacott]

24. So true

[madfloridian]

26. Bull hockey. People here are so afraid of the truth.

That our party just shoved aside one of its most powerful voices.

Are you so afraid of the media and the right wing that you would silence truth?

[Phoonzang]

32. No I'm not afraid, I'm just thinking forward to 2010.

Who are talking about when you say "one of it's most powerful voices"?

This article basically summarizes how I feel about what's going right now:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/09/borger.democrats/index.html

[madfloridian]

37. Who am I talking about? One of the most powerful voices in the party?

Who do you think?

[AlinPA]

21. Media words to watch: "blast", "plunge", "bash", "tumble", "plummet", "slam", "storm".....

[HughMoran]

31. Better than appearing to be marching in lockstep

The disagreement that the Dems do in public (and Republicans void like the plague), has certain advantages to it. It gives the appearance that dissenting voices matter. It makes the Dems look more independent. More intelligent people have opinions, followers tend not to be the best and brightest. I don't always understand what those who criticize Obama here are thinking though - we are not at all representative of the general public.

[Thrill]

33. CNN is loving it. But the Dems are the ones who ran to microphones

[AtomicKitten]

38. I'd say it's more Dems vs Obama here at DU than anything in the public square.

Lotsa barking going on.

[Cha]

40. The corporatemedia always tries to play

the American Public but there will be those who'd love to see them fighting.

Anyway, no big..they're Dems that's what they do.