Wow... how many more about-faces can Obama supporters do?

[rodeodance]

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Wow... how many more about-faces can Obama supporters do?
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4508824#4508824
4508824, Wow... how many more about-faces can Obama supporters do?
Posted by nonconformist on Sat Feb-09-08 07:22 PM

Let's see here...

DU has been screaming for Bush's head on a pike for years. Then, Obama said he didn't support impeachment, that it should be reserved for grave offenses. Not "it's too late to impeach now"... he said it was never warranted.

Obama supporters agree with him.

DU has criticized the Clinton administration for years for their compromises with the right-wing, which led to shitty policy like DADT and welfare reform. That criticism is very valid. But Obama is running his campaign on the idea of compromise and negotiation, and embracing Republican voters. The Obama campaign is saying that's how they can win, with Republican support, and touting that as the reason they will be effective for change.

Obama supporters agree with him.

DU has always been disgusted by the inane attacks the right-wing has thrown at the Clintons for years. Cigars, blue dresses, everything horrible to ever happen to mankind the work of the great and mighty Clenis. But now...

Obama supporters agree with those attacks.

DU has been saying for years that Universal Healthcare is vital. That it won't work unless everyone is on board. They point to important programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are mandatory as far as contribution. But Obama says that mandates are a horrible thing, that people shouldn't be forced to buy something they don't want to.

Obama supporters agree with him.

DU has railed against the MSM for years... they're unprofessional, petty, trite and degrading on a personal level. Hillary releases a statement against MSNBC, telling them that suspending Shuster for his remarks isn't enough - they have to address this pattern of behavior in the network that leads to these types of remarks.

Obama supporters spin it as "she wants him fired", when it's very clear what she meant.

It's like I don't know some of you people anymore. At this point, I really wouldn't be that shocked to see a Vince Foster thread here. If your wondering why the cult word gets thrown around, maybe this is part of it.

[primavera]

1. Well, not all Obama supporters agree with those things

Personally, I'm disappointed Obama hasn't supported impeachment measures. Has Hillary? I honestly don't know, but if she has been out there calling for impeachment, then that's wonderful and I'll definitely have to re-think my opinion of Hillary. I wish Obama were, but since nobody (at least that I know of), except for my main man Kucunich, has had the balls to introduce impeachment legislation, I didn't think that I could use that as a measurement of comparing the available candidates. But if Hillary's moved that worthy cause forward, please let me know!

I too am worried about Obama's calls for bipartisanship, because it smacks of the kind of accommodationist politics which the DLC has been pushing to such destructive results for years. I don't quite know what to make of that, but my hope is that it's an effort to inspire voters on both sides of the aisle, without necessarily volunteering to sell out. But you're right, I could be wrong about that and it does worry me. But what's my alternative? Hillary is the poster girl for the DLC, she's one of the founding members and their inner sanctum of leaders. I am worried that Obama may get too close to the DLC and their accommodationist, corporatist tactics, but with Hillary, what room for doubt can I have that she already is too close to that evil and has been for years?

I'm not sure what attacks on Hillary you're referring to, so it's hard for me to comment on whether I agree with them. Generally, I've been impressed by the extent to which the candidates have attempted to keep this race civil. If there has been excess zeal on anyone's part, I'd have to say it was on Bill's part, which may or may not be with his wife's blessing, but it's certainly not anything you can blame Obama for. If you're referring to criticisms of Hillary based upon her voting records, well, I'm sorry, but Hillary has made a number of controversial votes in her time. Not everyone agrees with the way she's voted. Expecting her to be accountable for her actions doesn't seem like a malicious attack to me. But maybe you're thinking of something else...?

In terms of health care, I'm on thin ice. Frankly, it hasn't been a top priroty for me so I haven't followed it as closely as I ought to have. All I can offer therefore on the subject is that Hillary's recent comment that she would be willing to garnish wages to enforce 100% participation struck a sour note with me. The mental image that generates in my mind is of thugs going and stealing Tiny Tim's crutches to make him pay premiums to fat cat insurance companies. That's obviously a grossly simplified and ludicrous mental image, but that's kind of my initial reaction when the first words I hear out of a candidate's mouth are not about how we're going to extend health care to everyone regardless of income, but rather how we're going to get people to pay insurance premiums. Again, I'm sure that there's much more to this issue, but I still think it was, at the very least, an unfortunate choice of wording on Hillary's part.

As for the whole MSNBC scandal, I haven't heard any Obama supporters attempt to defend Shuster's inappropriate comment or question any disciplinary action against him, so I don't know where you get the impression that Obama supporters are trying to create a vehicle for spin here. A journalist made a comment universally recognized as offensive and inappropriate, was appropriately censured by his network, and disciplinary action has appropriately been taken against him. That seems like a reasonable outcome to this Obama supporter. Can we get back to talking about what really matters, like the candidates' positions as opposed to the inappropriate comments of some MSM idiot? Can't we call this petty incident closed, or is there some reason to drag it out?

I don't know, rodeodance, I'm a little surprised by the vitriol that's characterizing the discussion between the Hillary and Obama camps. I mean, it seems like there's very little discussion going on, that the differing camps are mostly trying to find ways to cut the other down, which is I think very disappointing. Because I really want to understand these issues. If I'm basing my present support for Obama on faulty information or erronious conclusions about either him or about Hillary, you'd better believe I want to know about it. But how are any of us supposed to ascertain that as long as the discussion is limited to hurling insults at each other?