I am angry

[Two Americas]

This is rare - I know I can be a pain in the ass in an online debate and very contentious and argumentative, but I am very rarely emotionally upset or angry. So I thought I would post this in here first rather than out there.

I can't believe that Obama does not have Wright's back. What has Wright said that requires this "distancing" bullshit? Either you agree with and respect the man, or you don't. Better to stand with an unpopular opinion if you agree with it then to waffle and trot out pious mush mouth blather and weak pandering pablum.

Damn it, Democrats - stand for something!!

This is the same error that "progressives" make again and again, and it is going to destroy the party. Compromise when you shouldn't - "I reject what Wright has to say" - and fail to compromise when you should - "all of those rural voters and Clinton supporters are a bunch of racist assholes and fuck 'em who needs 'em?" Standing with Wright AND with the rural voters and CLinton supporters would have won the day here. But that would take some principles and that would take some courage.

I am really upset about this. The Obama campaign has been a fraud all along, a deceptive and divisive power play - not to beat the Republicans, but to seize control of the Democratic party for the upscale progressive few, even if that means losing the general election. We have been seriously abused by Obama supporters if we dare question his campaign, and now this.

"You Clinton supporters are a bunch of racists, not worth pandering to, but now we are going to turn on Reverend Wright - to pander to you?" W.T.F.???? We are being shamelessly manipulated.

[balantz]

1. If "O" supporters don't see through that kind of cowardly and evasive waffling

and fail to call him on it, then we are surely going to witness a big fall of the wonder "O".

This is nothing but another giant crack in the Obama facade and it will be the sort of thing that the GOP will use against him.

After witnessing more spineless, falling in goose-step bullshit from Congressional leaders these past few days, and then seeing Obama on FOX praising Reaganomics and General Patreus, and now these latest moves by Obama, I don't know what to say.

I tried discussing Obama's statements the other day on FOX out in GDP and was met with crickets.

I think things are only going to go downhill from here. Obama has set himself up for a fall.

[balantz]

2. Actually,

I think he is turning his back on a certain smaller segment of supporters because they are the "radical" fringe. Perhaps the "Wrights" are the truer progressives.

He would rather court the right and moderate and leave us in the dust.

I'll take a closer look at the Wright videos. I haven't done that. I need to better assess him for myself.

[Two Americas]

3. yes

I don't mean to talk about whether or not people here support Wright's remarks. I do, but that doesn't matter. The question is this: what does Obama stand for and what do his supporters stand for?

For 20 years Obama stood with the man, and now he does not?

Yesterday, Obama supporters were standing behind Wright, praising him profusely, and today they are saying that Obama dumping him was a "brilliant move" and more evidence that he is something exceptional?

Obama supporters have been telling us that Obama is representative of some sort of "new politics" and bringing integrity, honesty and transparency to the process. Now he makes a blatant and cynical old politics move, and he is being praised for it by the same people?

For weeks, Clinton and her supporters have been attacked as "doing anything for the sake of winning" and having no principles, yet now when Obama does exactly that, and so obviously, this criticism doesn't apply to him?

[saracat]

4. I do not agree with Wright about everything he says but Obama threw him under the bus.

Of course he also threw Obama under the bus with the "he is a politician" remarks. I think he spoke the truth on that BTW and I think the O supporters just don't want to get it. Obama disgusts me and always has because he is a pandering hypocrite. Hillary makes np pretense of walking on water or being above the fray. She is a 'politician" and that doesn't bother me. A fake saint does.
I witnessed the interfernce of the Obama Campaign first hand at my state convention this weekend and I was revolted by what a dirty campaign they are. Hillary looks clean as a whistle in comparison to the stunts these folks pull and the great brainwashed will defend him to the Nth degree.

If Obama is the nominee, all i can say is all my contributoions to the National Party will be over.Circumstances may prevent me from changing my registration but at heart I will be a DINO and an Indie at heart.

[Two Americas]

8. understanding what is happening

It is really convoluted and difficult to sort through the smoldering wreckage of the late great Democratic party and make sense of things. An Obama worker I know and respect asked me this morning "why would you fight against creating a new paradigm in American Elections" and said that "this has been an ongoing battle for four years at least, the progressives vs the Clintonistas" and here is how I answered.

Here is why anyone would fight "creating a new paradigm in American Elections."

I think that Dean's 50 state strategy, and the work by DFA folks to register new voters is in and of itself a positive thing.

However, were this for the purpose of strengthening and expanding the Democratic party that would be one thing, a very good thing, and were that the case we would not have the terrible feuding within the party right now and there would be no problem with some of us being recalcitrant, suspicious and resistant to being assimilated into the unity.

I think the goal of the Obama movement is not to present a strong front to the Republicans and strengthen the Democratic party, it is to advance the power and influence of a faction within the party. That is legitimate, and the DFA folks have every right to do that, but I would ask people to be honest about it. We are seeing an effort to commandeer the Democratic party, being presented as something else.

The DFA people see me, and people like me as the main enemy, not the Republicans. They win when they gain control over the party, not control over the government. They are willing to risk losing the general election for the sake of a desperate effort to seize control of the party and the narrative of the party.

I know that many of them I talk to think they are fighting the Republicans, or think that this is the way to fight Republicans, but on some level they know that is not the truth, but rather is a truth they are trying to hope and believe into being. Hence, there is much cognitive dissonance and that is causing all of the over the top acrimony, hostility and cult-like zealotry among Obama supporters.

The Obama campaign is the revenge of the Dean supporters from 4 years ago, a take-no-prisoners naked power play to force the party into this "unity." It is a relatively small, but very effective movement, dressing itself up as populism while saying "fuck 'em, we don't need 'em" to the almost half of the everyday Dems who are still resisting. I also think that lining up behind an African American candidate is a cynical move of tokenism - how can any of us be opposed to the candidacy of a Black man? - and the all too frequent charges of racism leveled at anyone who has reservations about this movement betray that there is a strong element of tokenism in the Obama campaign. It is also a misuse and betrayal of AA voters, and is causing deep and bitter divisions there.

I would think that people would recognize that something is wrong when socialists such as myself are defending Senator Clinton (!!??). You would have to think that we have all lost our minds - and I am being called a Neo-con, DLC, war monger, racist, Republican by people who never seemed to have any problems with any of those issues before the Obama campaign - or reach the more logical conclusion that perhaps we are on to something and that maybe there is something seriously flawed about the Obama campaign.

The very same people - hundreds of them - who a year ago were red baiting me and calling me a Marxist are now on the Obama unity bandwagon and calling me a right winger. That is weird, no way around it.

Almost all Obama supporters I talk to are much more interested and motivated and animated and emotional about destroying - and I do mean destroying by any means necessary - those whom they perceive as enemies within the party than they are to take on the Republicans, and have blithely accepted that the general is going to be very close and that we may very well lose.

I think it is clear that there is an agenda involving intra-party politics that is more important than fighting the Republicans. That is what many of us are resisting.

As for the ongoing battle between the "progressives" and the "Clintonistas" -

That is your battle, that is a battle for a relatively small faction within the party. Millions do not see themselves as having a dog in that fight.

I understand that this is how some see it. But that way of defining the battle has not been successful - obviously - and has failed to persuade many of us. That leaves you with two options - question the validity of the approach, or assign all who don't agree to the enemy camp and blame those resisting the unity for the failure of the unity - or call them Clintonistas or racists or DLC or otherwise attack and smear them.

I do not agree that the battle is between the "progressives and the Clintonistas" and I am one of millions of Democrats who do not see it that way. I believe that were the Obama supporters honest about what they are doing, and if all Democrats could see it clearly, that 90% of Democrats would not agree. Who is being assigned to the "Clintonistas" camp and upon what basis is getting more and more absurd every day, and making less and less rational sense. That means that the more the "progressives" reveal their hand, the less support they will have in the party - and it will be even more disastrous in the general - and that is in fact what is happening.

Obama is not putting Clinton away, and Obama supporters are in a huge panic to get this over with, and that is because more and more people are seeing the Obama movement for what it is and have reservations about it.

If the progressives want to take over the Democratic party, they need to persuade the rest of us, not bully us. I think they are trying to sneak it by us without giving us an opportunity to examine it too closely - and then screaming and insulting anyone who asks questions - and we are being asked to gamble away success in the general when we are told that the enemy is the Clintonistas rather than the right wing and their wealthy and powerful clients.

I do not believe that the Dean supporters, the DFA, nor the Obama supporters have the last word on the best way to defeat the right wingers, and I am resentful and suspicious of the intolerance and hostility directed toward any who refuse to believe that they do.

I say that we have a toss up, and we have a serious division within the party that needs to be tackled and resolved. That could mean a compromise candidate. At the very least, that should call for an end to the malicious attacks on Clinton and on anyone not on the Obama bandwagon.

You say "no one expected Clinton to collapse completely." Did Dean "collapse completely?" Or was Dean weaker than Clinton? Or was Kerry stronger than Obama? Which is it? It is a circular argument to say that Clinton is still around because she has strength (that we must battle against by any means and utterly destroy) and that Clinton has strength because she is still around (so the support for her means nothing, it is just "hang around" strength like a bad habit people can't break - stupid people or racist people or the MSM or something.)

[balantz]

5. The man is truly despicable.

I keep forcing myself to try to find things to like about Obama, only to witness yet another politically disgusting move by him.

There were more than two options for Obama in handling the Wright situation. He took the worst of all options.

20 years? They will shred him on this.

The Rezko case is very hushed these days in the media.

And then, I'll bring this up again, his remarks on the FOX interview really make him look right of center to me.

We haven't seen the beginning of all of this yet.

[Two Americas]

6. I have a bigger problem with many of the supporters

The whole thing is becoming such a mess - how can the damned party find yet another way to lose?

I give Obama something of a pass, because we shouldn't overlook the fact that Black men have a higher burden when seeking positions of power - they have to reassure whites and not scare them. That is just a fact. But many of the white Obama supporters don't have his back on this, and their protestations of being anti-racist and their attacks on others as being racists just do not ring true to me. At the same time, that is not to deny that racism is playing a role in this. Arrrrghhhh.

I can't blame the AA community for supporting Obama, either. The leftist community supported Dennis 'til the bitter end in 2004. The primaries are the time to make a statement to the party, and there is nothing wrong with the statement "a Black man should get consideration for the presidency."

What a mess.

[balantz]

10. Yes, I have seen many black people around my town just beeming,

and I am very happy with them. It brings tears to my eyes. I am one white man who thinks we should have had a black president long before now. Or a woman. Or a Buddhist. or a Muslim. A quadrapalegic. A person who doesn't have tens or hundreds of millions. Etc.

I am also sad for them, and for all of us, because I think it will prove to be a sham in the end.

And yes, Obama can be given a pass for trying to survive politically in a "white man's government", but as he does this I think his true colors are showing.

[Two Americas]

13. "true colors"

The "progressives" have framed this incorrectly and are trying to force their framing onto all of us.

The problem with Obama is the same problem we had with Kerry and Gore. We run professor types who resonate strongly with us, the intellectuals and activists - on a level of fashion, sentiments, preferences, and style - and then complain when the blue collar people reject them as arrogant, aloof and condescending. What do many "progressives" have to say about that? "Too bad" they angrily say. "Those knuckle draggers SHOULD be talked down to" they say, in effect.

If we are going to nominate a professor, and an old school triangulating politician, then so be it and no reason why it cannot be Obama. But let's not package it as something new and exciting, let's get to work and make the best out of what we have to work with. That starts with shutting up the arrogant and strident elitists and rather than once again leading with them and letting them alienate and ostracize millions of potential Democratic party voters. But the strident, elitist, arrogant and condescending "progressives" WILL be what we lead with, because they themselves are demanding that, because this campaign is about them, not the party and not the country.

Another disturbing thing is that many of the "progressives" do not experience themselves as personally being at any great risk, and have various "outs." This is revealed when they say "if the stupid people elect McCain they have whatever is coming to them, the idiots, and I wash my hands of America" or when they say "I will just leave the country." WTF? "Them?" what about "us?" And how many people have the resources to leave the country? Why are people who see themselves as separate from the people, above and superior to the people, and who have the option to leave if the going gets rough, presuming to speak for and decide the fate of millions of us who are not so fortunate?

[balantz]

14. I was talking about his seemingly "Republican colors".n/t

[glowing]

7. Let's face it, neither of the candidates are what we want or need for America.

John McCain is simply unacceptable on a whole. The reason Obama and Cliton are at a 50/50 divide is because neither are that good.. Hillary has a better plan for education and healthcare, but her ideas of blowing up the world scare the shit out of me... and I'm afraid given the responsibility and the "push" from Repugs, she'd do it. Obama is a Reagan-Democrat, but he has this etherial Hope and Change mantra.. it makes people believe they have a path, purpose, and a way out of the current mess that America has become in the last 8yrs. So, will he listen to the people and push for progressive agendas.. and given his foreign policies.. I'm not so sure he wouldn't nuke someone either. AND then, are we even going to get an election. This month they are playing "war games" again.. Let's hope another 9/11 isn't in the pipeline.

If Al Gore and John Edwards teamed up to run as an alternative 3rd party candidate, you could be sure that for the first time in America's history that the third party ticket won the GE. I'm not so sure either of them are willing to leave the Democratic party though.

I'm angry, too. But its not over Rev. Wright or Clinton or McCain. I'm angry at the top 2% who use every tool to divide and supress the power of the people. Its time more people focus on that issue.. the division.. and like Rev. Wright said, "different is not difficient, its just different". We need to unify. At least Obama sticks by that message; hopefully its not to unify the country towards the wrong direction.

[Two Americas]

9. I agree completely

Great analysis glowing. Thanks. You say it better and with fewer words than I can. :)

[glowing]

15. You always offer great insight for me to ponder.. I'm still thinking about

something you wrote a couple of days ago.. A compliment coming from you is indeed appreciated. Thanks. Lately on DU, I've been called stupid, silly, and not with the program.. of course, I've usually walked against the normal current.

[cornermouse]

11. I think the Obama faction on DU, at least,

are determined to split the party in a way that is similar to the the neo-cons did when they started taking over the republican party. They're the ones who keep running around telling people who don't agree that they aren't democrats. I don't know what can be done about it.

[Catchawave]

12. Color me confused....

Who's back am I supposed to have?

I'll play the game if I know the rules :silly:

[spooky3]

16. I wonder if John and Elizabeth are thinking, "I am SO glad we did not endorse..."

[balantz]

17. I was thinking that too.

But actually, I think they didn't endorse a long time ago in part because they were starting to see the real "O".

And then there's the health care issue and perhaps other policy things.

[spooky3]

18. I think you have a good point.

[frogmarch]

19. I'm not an Obama supporter

or a Hillary supporter, so my opinion of Wright is based only on Wright himself.

I think he's nuts, and I think Obama had every right to distance himself from him.

[balantz]

20. What about him or what he says makes you think that? n/t

I have only seen little clips of him. I know some of the clips and sound bites seem to be negative media portrayals. The one video out at D.U. main page where he was speaking about the Black American experience seemed to portray him as quite reasonable.

[frogmarch]

21. The members of my family represent

every skin color under the sun, including black. We are all very attuned to racial issues, and although we agree with certain points Wright has made and understand his anger over the gross racial injustices he's witnessed and experienced, we cringe at his frothing-at-the-mouth vindictiveness. If there's ever a time for rabble-rousing, this is not it. He needs to shut his yap.

[balantz]

23. Too late for that.

The things have been said. I'll bet the right wing is digging all of his words up and manufacturing a pseudo-Wright collage as we speak.

Obama has made mistakes with this whole thing that will be used against him.

[waiting for hope]

22. This is my problem with

the whole mess - Obama went to this church for 20 years, he married him and Michelle, baptized both his children. That kind of commitment to one organization for that long a time period can not be easily washed away with a speech that his supporters are calling sincere and saying has integrity. I believe none of that. I think he's pissed because Wright is pulling his own 15 minutes of fame and Obama just wanted him to sit quietly in the background until after the election, assuming he wins the primary. There is no integrity in these actions, and as Wright had eluded, Obama was doing what he needed to do politically. There are so many things wrong here, on so many levels - the first and foremost that I don't get is how stupid Obama could be not to know that this was going to come back and bite him on his ass - now he has thrown Wright under the bus, he has thrown the portion of voters that agree with Wright under that bus too.

Here's another problem that is brewing:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/obama-distanc-1.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

Liberal bloggers are expressing outrage over Barack Obama's appearance this weekend on Fox News, accusing the Democratic presidential front-runner of kowtowing to the network's conservative viewers, and throwing his online supporters to the wolves.

Obama broke a self-imposed embargo on the Rupert Murdoch-owned network that lasted for more than two years when he sat for an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday.

~Snip~

Although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights," Obama told Wallace.

The reaction from the blogosphere was quick, and largely critical.

"To be clear, Obama wasn't obliged to go after Fox," wrote TPM's Greg Sargent. "But a senior adviser said Obama would, as a way of quieting criticism of him. And he didn't.

"This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of delegitimizing the network and who already criticized Obama for agreeing to appear in the first place," Sargent continued.

"If you don't like that Obama steps on you, speak out," agreed Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com. "It was a mistake for us to endorse Obama, just as it was a mistake for us to do nothing against Clinton after she accused Moveon of intimating her supporters at caucuses."

"By going on Fox News, Obama made the right-wing press legitimate," wrote Daily Kos diarist "Bonddad" Sunday morning. "Simply put, I cannot vote or support anyone who participates in this medium."

Would Edwards have done this? I think not and anyone who utters how much Edwards and Obama are alike need to seriously re-examine their motives.

[bpeale]

24. and i say, if you put up with his infernal bullshit for 20 yrs every week from the pulpit

why are you so offended now? i think he's pandering & trying to distance himself from what he has believed for 20 yrs because he sees that its gaining legs finally & it ain't going to go away.

[balantz]

25. Trying to distance himself will only compound his problem with Wright.

He doesn't appear to be as smart as people think. He could have taken a much BIGGER approach and shown himself to be very mature and able to continue to embrace Wright and those who feel the kind of anger that Wright does as well as show that he has his differences of philosophy. If Obama was truly a progressive/populist as many think he is, then Obama would accept the feelings of injustice from people like Wright and use some of those sentiments to craft a progressive/populist campaign. I have to ponder what and who are being thrown under the bus along with Wright.

And then there are his glowing remarks about Reagan and Petreus, like he made at the FOX interview, and similar comments from many months ago while J.E. was still running.