With all due respect to those who are worried about defending Obama from progressive angst

[Tom Rinaldo]

Relax, Obama does not now need to be vigorously defended from attacks by Democrats who are worried about what exactly health care reform will ultimately include. He has shown himself more than capable of handling attacks from sources far more potent than disgruntled progressives on the blogsphere.

Obama never promised anyone an immediate Single Payer system so complaints about that represent water under the bridge, down the river and deep into the ocean in so far as they are relevant to attempting to influence the legislation that is emerging now.

Concerns over whether or not Obama is doing all the right things as best he can to deliver a public option plan that many of us are seeking from health care reform legislation, will start sorting themselves out organically within the next few weeks as the final plan emerges. If bloggers are satisfied with the results, no one will be complaining. If people are not happy with the results, let the blaming and defending commence. That is when Obama may need defenders against unfair accusations, or fair ones, you pick.

For all I know Obama is currently pursuing a result I will find desirable to me with the skill of a grand chess master. Then again he may be blowing it in one way or another. I can make guesses but I really don't know for sure. Nor do any of us. For better or worse I do know he is involved in the nitty gritty of it all now. If ever Obama was standing back and leaving it to legislators to legislate alone, he isn't any more. Olympia Snowe may get daily briefings about the negotiations going on to hammer out amerged Senate Bill, but Rahm Emanuel is one of the small handful of people actually sitting in on every minute of those negotiations.

My priority is simple; keep our eye on the ball. The actual contents of the final health care reform that will emerge from Congress hangs in the balance NOW. If people feel strongly about what should or should not be in that legislation, now is the time to make sure that those who have some direct influence over what emerges know exactly how we feel about it. If some of us go over the top and make an unfair accusation against Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama or Ben Nelson in the process, it little matters. The record will be set straight shortly. Now is the time to focus on getting our messages across to our leaders on this matter. Sometimes shouts speak louder than words.

[ProSense]

1. Incoherent

...If ever Obama was standing back and leaving it to legislators to legislate alone, he isn't any more. Olympia Snowe may get daily briefings about the negotiations going on to hammer out amerged Senate Bill, but Rahm Emanuel is one of the small handful of people actually sitting in on every minute of those negotiations.

<...>

If some of us go over the top and make an unfair accusation against Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama or Ben Nelson in the process, it little matters. The record will be set straight shortly. Now is the time to focus on getting our messages across to our leaders on this matter. Sometimes shouts speak louder than words.

Seriously, what is the point of the OP? It sounds like defensive whining

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. "My priority is simple; keep our eye on the ball. "

As for your first highlighted passage: Some here try to claim that, in honoring the seperation of legislative and executive powers under the Constitution, Obama bears no real role nor responsibility in what gets decided on by the Senate. Many here feel Olympia Snowe, as a member of the minority party, has been given undue influence in the internal discussions about how the differing Senate bills get merged. I point out that Obama's Chief of Staff is in that room but Olympia Snowe is not. Obama has a strong role and he is playing it, for better or worse.

If one or more of us underestimates Harry Reid or Barack Obama now, but what finally emerges proves us wrong, there was no real harm done once the record on their achievement is corrected. If one or more of us have to eat our angry words for selling a Democrat short now, again no real harm done.

The only real harm is if we get distracted over personal loyalty test fights now and in the process fail to project a strong enough message about what we expect Congress and our President to deliver, to this Congress and this President.

[ProSense]

3. Here's a solution

since this is a discuss forum: criticize Obama is you want to and let people defend him if they want to. That will ensure that "we" don't "get distracted over personal loyalty test fights."

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Or better yet ignore threads that you feel hold no value

As you say, this is a discussion forum free for people to discuss what they want.

[ProSense]

9. "this is a discussion forum free for people to discuss what they want."

Thanks for the approval to discuss this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Thanks for not insisting that my thread is out of line. n/t

[dionysus]

5. so when obama is compared to hitler (happened yesterday) or called a corporate whore all day long,

we shouldn't say anything? got it.

there's valid criticism, but there is over the top hyperbole attacks and bullshit all over the place here.
:eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. That's a bit more than "angst"

I thought folks could use common sense. There is a difference between someone calling Obama "Hitler" and someone expressing concern that Obama isn't fighting hard enough for a public option. At least I can see the difference.

[dionysus]

13. i can see the difference too but often when people get called for doing that stuff, they

play the "feet to the fire/contructive criticism" thing, as if it's gonna fool people.

[spoony]

21. I was going to tell you this in a locked thread

but unfortunately I hit post after it was locked and the whole message was lost. The gist of it was this: I searched for "corporate whore" on DU and read the first 8 pages of results. None of them referred to the President, not this one anyway. Several were about Bush. Several were about the appropriateness of "media whore" and "corporate whore" as terms for liberals to use. Three were aimed at candidates during the primaries, one against Clinton, one against Obama and one against both.

So basically what you've got to hang your hair-pulling and hand-wringing on is one stupid post about Hitler and the lie that Obama is called a corporate whore "all day long" (and in the other thread the claim was "every day").

Your arguments are dishonest, and serve as excuses to dismiss an articulate and decidedly NOT 'Obama bashing' OP.

[dionysus]

25. he's called it in many variances, corporatist tool, bankster shill, his "corporate masters"

center\right, republican in disguise

it does happen all the time. i think you're picking nits a bit. anyone who reads a lot of GDP sees it.
:shrug:

[spoony]

26. I don't think I can be accused of "picking nits" by using your own terms.

Here's the problem: there's a huge difference in arguing that Obama serves, willingly or otherwise, corporate interests, and simply calling him names. You were arguing specifically that the latter was going on. I searched and did not find that the case. I did a similar search on "corporatist tool"--a step up from "whore" but still probably uncharitable--and similarly found very few instances of it referring to Obama after the election (apparently the primaries were more vicious than I remembered, though).

Guess what the only result for "bankster shill" is? Yeah, your post. And saying that the President has "corporate masters" is not, I don't think, an insult. It's a reality. It's not even necessarily a critique of Obama; it's rather a recognition of the fact that for a long, long time our leaders have been expected to cater to, and have usually caved in to, corporate interests. Obama has done a lot more than his predecessors to kick against the pricks, but he has also, imo, nodded to them more than I'd like to see.

[PretzelWarrior]

7. questions about where health care is headed are valid. Hate speech is not.

what many of us on here get so bothered by are the incessant attacks DESPITE OUR REMINDERS OF THEIR EFFECT from our DU brethren. For instance, your post is thought out and not a bunch of slams against "Obamabots" or "Obama koolaid drinkers".

We all have our questions and our points of view. But some see fit to drag down the discourse by slamming Obama, questioning his motives, and throwing out the "I'm taking my ball and going home" threats of not supporting Obama ever again if he doesn't do X.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. I agree with you.

Though I guess if someone HONESTLY believes that if Obama does X they will never support him again that would be be a straight forward expression, to be taken seriously or not by anyone reading it.

Thank you for noting that I personally do not slam Obama. I am glad he is in office and I appreciate a great deal of what he has already done. Repeatedly slamming Obama doesn't seem constructive to me either. But honestly questioning him over one or another action or inaction isn't out of bounds. Actually I am guardedly optimistic that we will end up with what I think is at least minimally acceptable health care reform from this struggle. If we do Obama will have presided over fulfilling a promise to America that many before him failed to deliver on.

[geek tragedy]

8. Angst is okay, Vicious smears and false attacks and accusations

of corruption, etc are not okay and require pushback. And there's too much of the latter around here.

heck, almost everyone gets frustrated with him--that's natural. But, frustration is no excuse to call him a "big pregnant whore" as some Naderite knuckle-dragging moron did earlier today.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I agree with you as well. Thanks n/t

[Hutzpa]

14. Progressive angst?

says who? you call the vile attack on Obama angst(?) ahhh karamba....

[Cha]

15. Hey, I like your

little sig thingy..how did you arrive at 83%?:P

I'm like a 100% myself:*

[Hutzpa]

17. I got cheated

from 105%.... ;)


I can ping the image to you if you want.

[Cha]

19. That's sweet but I better not..

I'll just enjoy your's for the interim.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Refer to my post #6 as well as the text of the OP

What vile attack on Obama did I call angst? Or do you can consider all criticism of Obama vile attacks?

[Hutzpa]

18. No you didn't

you see it as angst and I see it as vile, two different lenses.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Why do you assume that some concerns expressed about Obama can't serve his purpose?

If you go back to my OP you will see that what I am talking about are concerns related to the current health care reform fight that is nearing its culmination, not some across the board series of wide scale attacks on Obama's character or Administration.

Let's assume as I do and you certainly must also that Obama means what he says when he said he thinks the Public Option is the best way to provide for competition, and keeping insurers honest. From that I conclude that if it's fate is still uncertain it's because of resistance elsewhere, in Congress.

So if somehow the White House switchboard lit up with complaints from callers saying Obama "isn't doing enough" to get the Public Option, does that weaken or strengthen his hand in negotiations? I don't think it would hurt, for example, for Obama to be able to tell Reid; "I'm getting tons of calls saying I'm not doing enough to get the Public Option passed. A lot of people out there obviously feel strongly about this, and those feelings are getting stronger. So what are you going to do to get this thing done?"

How is that a problem for Obama? I especially ask that of those who are telling folks not to worry, we are going to get a Public Option in the final bill. Obama will come out of this smelling like a Rose if a real public option passes, no matter how much skepticism about his leadership gets articulated now.

[Hutzpa]

22. Thats where the problem is

you see, all this fuss is over nothing, the President has not made a public
statement regarding the health care, what he has said though is he favors PO
and would like to see it included, that statement has been seen as an opportunity
by the lobbyist and their enablers to continue attacking the health care
reform. You can fault the White House for not aggressively defending the statement,
knowing how politicians play politics I could also see it as the White House
playing politics too.

Now, the anger that you speak of from the "so called" progressives are all
generating from speculation and hearsay from the media, whom are proclaiming
that some anonymous White House aid or official said Obama wants to kill our
granny, that does not put me in a position to throw the kitchen sink at him,
what it does is motivate me to campaign for a result that will benefits our
interest.

You do have a point, which is to call the White House to express our disappointment,
not anger but disappointment on a decision the White House has made,
which in this case there has not been any yet. Until there is an official statement
from the White House as to their position on health care I will conserve my anger
if any, instead I will generate that anger toward the Republicans who have been in
power for the last eight years and I might add did nothing about reforming health
care but has now decided they have all the answers to health care and we should do
nothing.

Finally, I have learned long time ago to read between the lines when it comes to politics
because politicians are thought to not speak clearly even when they have the facts in
front of them. What we are seeing is politics being played and unfortunately most of us
tends to get caught up with the mixed messages that they (politicians) throws out at us.

Our anger in my opinion should not be thrown at the President, it should be channeled
toward congress and the senate where you have these lackadaisical Congressmen and women
who sees this as an excuse to continue business as usual which in turn provides ammunition
for the lobbyist and special interest organization to continue their dirty deeds.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Actually I think my personal position is not that far from yours

I have not expressed any anger at the White House over the Health Care Reform issue, neither here nor anywhere else. But for that matter I haven't expressed anger at Senator Reid or Speaker Pelosi either. I won't say that I have been let down by our Democratic leadership unless and until the ink is dry on a final deal that I am really unhappy with. There's still a good chance that what emerges as an end product will at least meet my minimal expectations.

What I do feel free to share either in public or directly to the major players involved is my deep level of concern about the need to get this health care reform right, which in my opinion includes the need for a viable public option to be included in that reform. For some other people their concern may come out more as an expression of disappointment in the type of leadership they see, or don't see displayed, in their opinion so far. If so I don't see that as a big problem for Obama, or even Harry Reid for that matter (although in his case activists, union and otherwise, are already going over his head in ads that complain about his leadership to his constituents who will be voting on him next year).

Questions about the leadership ability of any political leader are always finally resolved by results delivered. Accusations prove hollow if they come up false. If Democrats manage to deliver quality health care reform for America this year, I bet you most people who are griping about Harry Reid now will feel a whole lot better about his leadership after the fact. And the same goes for those who question Obama on this matter now.

My major difference with you seems to me at first glance to be this. I think it better that people voice their sincere concerns and even frustrations if they have them directly to our elected Democratic leaders before everything is already a done deal, not just when it is too late for any changes to be made. I have been open here at DU about stating that I am reserving judgement on pretty much the entire Democratic Party leadership regarding their work for health care reform, keeping an open mind until the ball stops moving and we know what we end up with. But if people are worried about what they think they currently see happening better to put it on the table now where our leaders can take those sentiments into account however they see fit, before all the final decisions are made.

P.S. Whether or not we personally end up finding any common ground on this, I appreciate the time you have taken to seriously discuss your views on this with me. Thanks.

[Hutzpa]

24. We are on the same page

yes, and thank you for your kind responses, we only differ on angst and vile, which
IMO both can be seen as the same based on the level of vitriol.

Our attack should be focused on blue dogs and their counterpart(Republicans) who
are trying to undermine the process constantly, lets not forget also the White House
initiated this reform, Obama ran on reforming the health care and won with 50%+ majority,
if Americans did not want health reform he would not have won the election, we both know
this, based on that alone I'm willing to play the wait and see game.

In spite of all the noise I feel confident, looking over to the other side I can't
see anything that would elate me, nothing, despite all the naysayers attempt to
derail the reform by pointing fingers at the White House, they have been focused on fixing
the economy. The bottom line is most of us are being done by the mixed messages coming
from the White House, no one knows what to believe, we all go :crazy: just trying to figure
out their every move, me I'm loving it....B-)


Peace!!