Why Aren't Democrats Supporting Obama?

[Gman]

Imagine this scenario: president-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt is weeks away from entering office. He's indicated that he will offer a sweeping plan to revive the economy, but leading Democratic Senators are already sniping that he's being too cautious or not bold enough. Meanwhile, liberal columnists are piling on to criticize him.

Sound crazy? It's exactly what's happening to Barack Obama. Obama hasn't even set foot in the Oval Office and already windbags such as John Kerry and Tom Harkin are fulminating about his economic plan. Has it eluded Kerry's attention that Obama accomplished something he failed to do four years ago, namely, win the presidency, and not by a small margin?

The GOP must be chortling. Republicans don't have to attack Obama; the Democrats are already doing it for them.

This is nuts. No doubt Democrats have a tradition of tearing down their own presidents -- recall Joseph Lieberman, among others, sanctimoniously denouncing Bill Clinton from the well of the Senate -- but usually it takes a few years. Not now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/why-arent-democrats-suppo_b_157071.html

----------------------------------------------------------

This is more than nuts. Heilbrunn hasn't seen anything yet. He should read DU. I'm still literally shocked at the level of acrimony towards Obama here at DU. It's beyond stupid.

[leftstreet]

1. LOL but it's not 'acrimonious' to call John Kerry a windbag?

Who's attacking whom, here?

[Gman]

4. "windbag" hardly rises to the level of being called acrimony

Obama would be praised if that is all he was called here.

[Mass]

7. The Dems ARE supporting Obama. This guy is not. May be looking at whom he is

would have been good for you.

[Gman]

17. Hint: Read DU

get it?

[Mass]

18. I know what you are talking about. The problem is that the article you

are posting is BS. Nobody proves a point with a biased piece that has nothing to do with the point he is making.

[blm]

24. Senate Dems already got the package moved leftward - do you want it moved back

to the center?

Obama's economic team has agreed with the criticisms presented and altered the package - explain why Dem senators were wrong in wanting the revisions.

[mopinko]

32. they are wrong if they are bloviating in the press.

i think that critique of the package is fine. but you don't do it in the newspapers if you want your new president to succeed. kerry and harkin should get a rap on the knuckles and they should stfu.

[blm]

33. BALONEY - they did it to set the perception Obama wanted - that he didn't expect rubberstamp senate

the way Bush demanded from Republicans.

Obama succeeded in establishing himself as a president who will listen to dissent even from his own party.

Obama and Dems played it exactly as needed for Obama's image and for theirs as independent branches of government.

Obama puts up his FIRST PROPOSAL and you all really wanted the GOP and their mediawhores to be labeling Dem senators as mindless rubberstampers? Obama was deliberately vague so Dem senators COULD have the debate needed and wanted.

[politicasista]

39. Doesn't matter people here

will think that people are intentionally piling on Obama when that's not the case. So, bashing Kerry and others to praise Obama is fun for many here.

[karynnj]

52. They weren't "bloviating"

Kerry and Harkin are both fine public servants, who have been re-elected by their states 5 times. They both head important committees. Their comments were very reasonable and they had not just the right but the responsibility to give their opinions when asked - their states deserve their voices. Neither attacked Obama. Kerry just spent a full year being the best surrogate I ever saw in any election. He defended Obama smoothly and brilliantly on both foreign policy and domestic policy. The election is over - Kerry is not a surrogate now. He has a right to disagree on policy with anyone. A fair presentation would also take the comments last week where he - as he has all year - praised Obama.

[politicasista]

55. Good post

Unfortunately DUers and some (not all) of Obama supporters see all this as "mean old Kerry picking on our PE Obama or just bitter he doesn't have a cabinet post." (I know he isn't, but a lot of that appears on Obama's campaign blog). Never mind that this is what Obama wants to happen.

I know this comment isn't helpful, but a lot of anti-Kerry people who were supportive of him endorsing and being a surrogate for Obama are back to their old selves. Go figure. :(

[blm]

16. Try reading the piece and COMPREHENDING what asshat writer is really about G.

.

[karynnj]

50. Actually - Heinbrunn was speaking of the comments made on the stimulus package

None of the comments attacked Obama in any personal way. Here is Kerry's statement - ""I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job."

This is consistent with Kerry positions in both 2004 and in 2008 running for Senate - and they are similar to things Obama ran on. It is not even a contentious comment - and Obama essentially agreed with it Sunday on This Week.

Kerry does not deserve the label wind bag - he has been more consistently right on a range of issues than nearly anyone in or out of government. Obama took many positions from Kerry - and he used Kerry as his lead or one of his lead surrogates. So, I think it is safe to suggest that Obama doesn't think Kerry a "wind bag"

[pnwmom]

23. John Kerry does not have the weight of the country on his shoulders.

People here who talk approvingly of holding Obama's "feet to the fire" forget what this means. People whose feet are being held to the fire aren't in a position to accomplish much.

[blm]

25. Obama's team altered the package correctly, and Obama is seen as a president who LISTENS and doesn't

WANT to be rubberstamped - the exact opposite of Bush's reign.

What will it take for some of you to GET what Obama and Senate Dems accomplished last week? They completely squelched the certain attack of the GOPs and their media machine geared up to label the Senate as a rubberstamp for Obama.

[pnwmom]

27. Were you talking to me? What did I say? n/t

[karynnj]

47. Kerry is an ally of Obama's

There is nothing that he said that can be called holding "Obama's feet to the fire". You can look - but there was NOT ONE NEGATIVE thing said.

The fact of the matter, is that Kerry does know - he was the standard bearer for the party in 2004 - and he led - as much as people let him the effort in 2005 - 2007 to regain the Congress and to help elect a Democratic President.

Kerry's comment was ""I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job."

Heilbrunn doesn't include the comments - I wonder why? Maybe because they do not support his outrage.

[pnwmom]

51. I didn't accuse Kerry of saying that.

I referred to "people here," i.e., DUers, as using that expression, since I've seen it here many times.

But I don't think Kerry's backseat driving is particularly helpful now.

[blm]

60. Why do you think it hurts Obama to be seen as a president who will take correction from left when

it is needed? You think it serves Obama's agenda to be seen as a president who needs complete obedience the way Bush's fragile ego drove his relationship with senate GOPs?

Obama and Dems he's close with pukked off a smart feat last week - they established Obama as a president with a healthy ego who can deal with changes to his proposals even from his own party.

The corpmedia would have loved nothing more to establish an early narrative that Dems are rubberstamping Obama. GOPs were always described as patriots standing forcefully behind their stoic president. Dems would have been certainly attacked as irrelevant seatfillers who do nothing more than rubberstamp their president.

This is the reality of US media that Obama and Dems have to deal with, and I think on their first time out they pulled the rug out from under the GOPs and the media who already planned a different narrative for Dems.

[Mass]

2. RW hack from National INterest. Thanks for playing.

BTW, they are supporting Obama. This idiot who posts is not.

[PM7nj]

3. Democrats cannot follow a leader and are awesome at shooting themselves in the foot.

Not blindly following a leader is good thing most of the time though.

[TTUBatfan2008]

5. Constructive criticism is good...

but there's quite a bit of vitriol behind it, almost as if there's a personal hatred towards him. I think it comes from jealousy because many on here supported other candidates in the primary, including Kucinich, Clinton, Edwards, et al.

[PM7nj]

11. I agree. nt

[karynnj]

48. Not in this case - Kerry, Conrad, Wyden were all strong Obama allies

Baucus and Harkin were quieter but I think they were Obama superdelegates as well. These are all serior Senators - mostly on the Finance or Budget committee. There comments was constructive and there was NO verbiage of not voting for it if they didn't get changes.

[Mass]

6. Did you and the OP even read the article. This is a RW guy who writes in a RW magazine.

[PM7nj]

10. Actually, I didn't. Just making a general comment.

[Gman]

13. Not blindly following is OK if you know as much or more than the leader

The DU membership hardly fits that category.

[navarth]

22. Oh so if we don't know as much as Barack we should blindly follow.

Look.

I don't see DU 'attacking' Obama that much. But I do see a lot of concern over how he's going to govern. Probably best to get used to that. And of course, feel free to defend BO against 'attacks'. My understanding of it is that everybody gets to have an opinion here.

[Runcible Spoon]

54. ummmm WUT

:scared: what a truly terrifying and undemocratic sentiment

[Boomerang Diddle]

8. K & R

:kick:

[blm]

9. Pretty dense analysis in that piece. Obama set that debate exactly where he wanted it so Dems could

move it leftward and GOPs and their mediawhores COULDN'T start the certain round of attacks calling them rubberstamps for Obama.

Obama came away last week with the image of a president who didn't NEED yes-men to feed a fragile ego and as a president who respects dissent and debate - the complete opposite of Bush.

Those focusing on trees missed the forest that was right in front of them. Dumbasses.

[Uzybone]

37. Agreed, Obama and senate dems are one step ahead

the blogosphere and the assorted fools who bloviate on it all day are the suckers. They swallow any sort of "conflict" story that the MSM feeds them.

Coming soon: Kerry vs Clinton during the senate hearing. I already see stories about this made up conflict.

[marlakay]

12. We hold our leaders to a much higher standard than they do

We want fairness think Howard Dean and Prop 8. We want universal healthcare think picking Gupta who insulted Michael Moore. We want Bush and cronies punished and or hung (as do most of the u.s.) and what we are hearing is commission like 9-11 that did jack shit and or we are looking to the future, reality speak...won't punish Bush.

So while we are all eternally grateful we don't have John McCain up there for another 4 years of this shit, we fought hard for change not pacifying the repubs by staying in the center.

[frazzled]

14. I think it's essentially a question of cowardice and CYA

It's the same reason Kerry voted for and supported the Iraq War Resolution: he was scared of being (politically) wrong.

With the economic stimulus package, they are all afraid it may not work, so they are all going on record--from Kerry to Krugman--so that they can say "I told you so" if it doesn't work as well as it should. It's cowardly oppositionism. I'm glad someone has taken them to task (via TPM) to say, "offer something constructive or shut up." Of course, their cover-your-assism may go so far as to prevent any stimulus package at all from being passed. Nice work.

[blm]

19. Horsepoo - Obama set the debate where he wanted it started so Dems could move it leftward. And they

already succeeded.

You are taking the word of a rightwing hack's analysis - a hack who was CHEATED out of the opportunity of attacking the Dems as rubberstamps for Obama.

That some still haven't realized how well Obama and the Dems played this would be funny if it wasn't so sad to see here at DU.

[frazzled]

30. Awwww ....

offended by Kerry being called a windbag?

Your double-tricky strategery theory is bull: the dissension about what the stimulus should consist of is real (probably as it should be, given the enormity of the stakes). And it is really based on people being worried it is too big/too small/wrongly directed, etc. I trust Obama will get something fairly good passed, and that it will have an ameliorating effect on the economy within a reasonable period of time. But this is not about outsmarting the right-wingers. You don't know Obama very well if you think it is.

I have had both Obama and Kerry as my senators. I know their modus operandi fairly well. So don't give me bull poopie responses.

[blm]

35. Right - Obama's M is to immediately give RW reason to label Dem senate as rubberstampers.

Guess you also missed that Obama's economic team has already embraced the Dem senators' suggestions.

[frazzled]

44. I have nothing against the constructive criticism

I have something against your conspiracy theories. I maintain that this was and remains the real Obama methodology: allow everyone to put their good ideas in, and then respond. No one has questioned that. But I don't think it was a game.

And no: Paul Krugman was never an Obama supporter. He was indeed one of his largest detractors. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be offering constructive criticism, mixed with actual real things that could be done. Obama gave him an open invitation to offer up some useful ideas.

But the fact that Obama is incorporating some of the ideas from the Senate and elsewhere has to do with Obama's ways of doing things: he listens and he responds. (As opposed to your idol Senator Kerry, who never listened and never responded to anyone, least of all to his constituents. I never once received a letter from him in response to email inquires; whereas within months of taking office, Senator Obama wrote back letters so detailed in their exact response to my inquiries that I could have sworn they were actually personal.)

I am a total optimist about the president-elect and his way of garnering support. I also don't write off all right-wing writers as you would have us do. That is not what President-elect Obama wants us to do. The RW writer had at least one thing right: Kerry was never elected.

Get with the new way of doing things in Washington, not the old us vs. them thinking of the past.

[blm]

53. You have pathetically misread what went down. PS: Kerry is wellknown for listening to all sides

and Obama joins him in that virtue.

YOU may think that Obama WANTED Senate to rubberstamp his first proposal without question, but, I highly doubt anyone who really observed his tactics over the years would agree with you.

And, funny, how no one from Obama's actual team has complained about Senate Dems' input - in fact, they have only spoken positively about it. Only troublemaking knownothings and mediawhores have spun this as a black mark either against Obama or the Dem senators.

Played - a pack of dumbasses completely played.

[frazzled]

56. "Patahetic," "idiots" ... the persuasive charm just oozes

from your every pore. Just like back in the good ol' bartcop forum days, eh.

You never read a single one of my posts above. I support dissent and never once said I wanted, expected, or otherwise adhered to the idea that the Democrats should rubber-stamp anything Obama proposes.

But go ahead and spin your own web of delusion. If you think the way to win arguments, however, is to ignore what people have written, and then call their arguments "pathetic" or refer to them as "idiots" (as you do below), you will continue to have little credibility.

And now I bow out, for there is clearly no having a rational conversation with someone who listens to no one but themselves.

[elocs]

15. Tsk, tsk, tsk. There is no acrimony here at DU towards Obama, only "constructive criticism".

We love to dish it out because we all so enjoy receiving it ourselves.

[karynnj]

20. Kerry and Harkin are not winbags - and nothing either said is out of order

As to Kerry, Obama might not have even gotten the nomination without Kerry's endorsement and incredible support. Not to mention, the election is over and Kerry is no longer an Obama surrogate, Kerry is independent as a senior Senator to comment on issues - if Obama wanted him 100% his surrogate and ally, he had that choice.

I read Conrad's, Wyden's, Kerry's and Baucus's comments - they were all constructive criticism on policy issues. From this screed, you would never expect that Kerry's comment was:

"Sen John Kerry, D-Mass., said, "I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job."

This is exactly what Kerry has recommended when speaking in MA - http://www.johnkerryforsenate.com/blog/entry/sen_kerry_discusses_the_current_economic_crisis_with_ma_students_and_voters/

To compare Kerry's comment on an economic plan with Lieberman attacking Clinton is crazy. Kerry is a senior member of the Finance committee - a committee that is charged with looking at legislation such as the stimulus package. It is his job to review and give his opinion on this - and it was certainly not an attack on Obama.

It sounds like you have come to see the relationship between the Republican party and Bush as the norm to be emulated. I also think that MOST POSTERS HERE would be more likely to agree with those comments than with the Obama's teams proposals.

[TTUBatfan2008]

21. The whole thing was orchestrated...

the people criticizing Obama in the Senate on this were some of his strongest supporters during the campaign. He set it up so that the Republicans can't claim he didn't offer a moderate enough package, when in fact his initial "offering" was loaded with tax cuts to appease them. They came out against it, just for the sake of opposing a Democratic President, and so now he gets "complaints" from the left to make it a more liberal package. It was a pretty smart political strategy, one that he's used before.

[blm]

26. Exactly - it stopped the certain labeling of Senate as Obama's rubberstamp, too.

They accomplished this not easy task on the very first package presented.

I'm amazed that so many Dems here at DU haven't picked up on the obvious.

[TTUBatfan2008]

29. I'm very interested to see...

the Republican response to this once they figure out that he pulled a fast one on them. He gave them their shot to have a seat at the table, they refused, and so he "allowed" the Democrats to "convince" him to come up with a more liberal plan...ahem, one that he probably came up with in the first place.

[blm]

36. Hard to believe the level of idiocy from those still howling - you think they'd have gotten it once

Obama's team embraced the changes with enthusiasm.

[politicasista]

38. That's what it sounds like

But of course people here love to bash Kerry and other Dems, especially if it means promoting Obama.

[TTUBatfan2008]

40. There's been a lot of...

jumping to conclusions around here by both the Obama lovers and haters. I think he has his eye on a bigger picture and he's a smart strategist. People need to remember that before so quickly deciding that every little thing is a big deal.

[politicasista]

42. Exactly

I know we will agree and disagree with Obama and Democrats decisions on things, but thanks for being one of the voices of reason in this thread. :hi:

[ReadTomPaine]

28. Our work simply started with an Obama presidency.

If government isn't taken in hand by the populace and shaped into the instrument we want it to be it takes a life of its own and shapes the populace instead. This is especially true of American politics where it's all about conflict and control. By definition, politicians must be directed, like unruly children, to do the right thing. This is true even of Democrats. This isn't always a dignified process, indeed it's made difficult precisely because elected officials don't like to be told what to do, despite the nature of the profession centering around implementing the will of others and listening to a constituency.

Ironically, while nearly everyone in politics seems to understand this, few outside have grasped the full implications.

Government must be tamed. People like Bush are made to be broken and digested by the body politic. He should have been nothing more than a democratic candy bar - a quick snack for better candidates on the road to the presidency. Instead, we had an imperial presidency born from a political dynasty that should have been removed from the levers of power decades ago. In a real sense, we had the government we deserved.. or perhaps more precisely, the party we deserved. One cannot sit and hope that elected officials will do what you want. They must be compelled to do as the electorate wishes. That compulsion can take many forms, from debates and public criticism to national strikes and mass protests but in each case the actions require those involved to be willing to accept the sacrifices and consequences that will accompany such forceful measures. The resolution to all of this isn't going to always be amicable.

No one escapes the septic DC environment intact. It's the job of the people, and formerly the media, to keep that infectious influence from becoming terminal illness. If we were a country of laws instead of men, then the institutions created to safeguard our nation from these abuses would be more powerful than those who would wish to corrupt it. Sadly, this is not the case. We are decidedly a government of men, as the Bush presidency proves beyond any shadow of a doubt. In light of this, the duty falls upon us to to effect the changes we wish to see by whatever methods are appropriate and effective, even when others may find them distasteful.

It’s said most great American literature revolves around what it means to be an America in one way or another. This preoccupation seems curious at first, but in actuality it illuminates a central paradox of our national character. The U.S. is not designed around rigid precepts that break when pressured or collapse when tainted by corrupting influence. The structure of our government is designed to enable both depots and egalitarians almost equally.

This open model of governance provides us with the building blocks for every type of political landscape, from dictatorship and corporatism to democracy and socialism. We are both saint and sinner, sometimes simultaneously. America is whatever you want it to be.

The framers recognized that in such an environment, apathy is toxic. As men of action and passion, they understood that you cannot turn your back on this country, in either sense of that phrase, and expect good to come of it. They wrote of this often.

Involvement is key. The good or the evil of a generation can be wiped away by purposeful, diligent hands, making all past achievements, no matter how great, subject to change. That was our founders’ gift to us, and their curse. We can remake ourselves from ashes, but at the same time, we can never be truly secure.

It seems the price for our freedom is indeed eternal vigilance.

[flying rabbit]

41. Good post

:toast:

[NJmaverick]

31. There is a damn good reason while Congress' approval ratings are a fraction

of PE Obama's

[dionysus]

34. i agree with you.

[TheKentuckian]

43. Support and rolling over are pretty different

Pay attention to the push back and you'll see Obama's earliest supporters. This is advanced framing. Even if it's not, that is Congress doing their job.

[Abq_Sarah]

45. Leading democratic senators supported Roosevelt

Until he inserted himself into the Senate majority leader's race after Senator leader Robinson died. Then, all bets were off.

In any event, Reid and President Obama are going to be dancing partners and it's best that neither step on the other's toes. If Reid overreaches and tries to "manage" President Obama, he's going to be in for a rude awakening.

[bvar22]

46. All I have to say is:

Thank You, Kerry and Harkin.
I can be OK as long as Obama is triangulating toward his base (The Left)

I hope their voices will be as strong and effective when Obama tries to escalate the War in Afghanistan, or float his (Republican) For Profit Health Insurance Plan.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Two Americas]

49. we all are

Virtually everyone is "supporting Obama."

The Republicans are most definitely not chortling. They well know that if Obama responds to the growing consensus for left wing approaches to the crisis that they are toast for a generation or more.

The Republicans will be chortling of the conservatives among us succeed on shutting down criticism from the Left, because that will isolate Obama and tie his hands, and force him to compromise with the right wingers.

Obama needs cover and support, and that means building a consensus and demand from the public for an alternative to the right wing Reaganomics program. That means people on the Left speaking out and speaking out strongly. That is not "against" Obama. It is the most important thing we can do to support the success of the administration. Hero worship of the personality of Obama is not really "support," and that does him, us, and the American people a terrible disservice.

FDR had all sorts of opposition from the Left. He welcomed it. He told ER "if you want me to do something, force me to do it."

[PVnRT]

57. So...the Democrats should just be Yes People? I thought that's what Obama DIDN'T want?

[LittleClarkie]

58. So since Obama won the presidency and Kerry didn't, Kerry shouldn't have an opinion?

Perhaps there are those who would rather someone was holding Obama's feet to the fire instead of worshiping at his temple because he managed to become president.

By that logic, no one should have had an opinion of Bush either. After all, he'd done what none of us had managed to do.

I don't think Obama minds, really. He has said time and again he wants people's opinions, especially if they disagree. Hopefully he meant that.

[LynneSin]

59. Depends on what democrats you're talking about

If you're talking about us democrats who actively post on websites like DU - well yeah, that's a concern. So far, at least at DU, we've found reason to grief with just about every choice that Obama has made.

But if you talk about the rest of the democrats out there, the vast majority who use their computer internet connection to pay bills, get sports scores and download music & porn - they're pretty much behind the guy.

[LWolf]

61. Kerry and Harkin both

have better credentials, imo, and a longer resume, than Obama.

Why aren't SOME Democrats supporting Obama? Because they don't trust him not to squander our opportunity to move the left forward while he conducts his affair with the right.