"Anti-Obama"

[murdoch]

Conseratives, and even some moderate independents, have made a lot of jokes about how Democrats have an almost cultish devotion to Obama.



Looking over these threads recently, with a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil attitude about how the health care bill in its present form has been completely destroyed, I am beginning to get this creepy feeling myself.

For myself, there are things I primarily blame Obama for, but health care is not one of them. I primarily blame Lieberman, and to a lesser extent Nelson for that.

However, people here who are correctly stating that this bill has been so wrecked by the HMOs (and to some extent the pro-life crowd) are being labeled "anti-Obama". What does that mean? Is Obama our cult leader who we have to worship? I'm trying to think of another analogy but can't, so I ask, are we supposed to follow the Fuehrerprinzip in terms of Obama? Are we supposed to pass this legislation, which in its present form conservatives hate, and liberals hate, just because getting a bill passed will (theoretically) look good for Obama?

This is not about Obama, this is not about one person, it is a movement, a coalition of workers (organized labor, the peace movement) and identity politickers (liberals, feminists, gay rights) and those which fall into both groups (blacks and Latinos). Obama is voted in to represent this movement. If he sides with big business against this movement, then he is going to be criticized.

I don't even think Obama has much to be blamed for with this health problem, I blame Lieberman and Nelson. I also think without Medicare-55 and/or a public option, the bill should be killed. But calling people anti-Obama strikes me as weird and cultish. Some of you are beginning to sound like those supposed Obama cultists that conservatives and Chris Matthews laugh about. I guess there are some out there.

[lapfog_1]

1. Actually, until Obama called the members of the Dem caucus

and extolled to them the virtues of the Lieberman bill, I was in the camp of "Obama isn't to blame, he might have done things differently, but this isn't his fault". But that changed two days ago.

He could have told the caucus "Look, we promised at least some sort of public option. If the Bill doesn't have that, I will veto it". But he didn't.

He wants to sign something, before the SOTU now. (was before Christmas, then before Thanksgiving, then before the summer recess, blah, blah, blah). Apparently he doesn't care too much what he signs.

So, since two days ago, he owns it. He wants it. It's a bad bill.

[timeforpeace]

2. +1, and K&R for a well thought out OP as well.

[Clio the Leo]

4. You were in the room?

I'm superjealous.

[lapfog_1]

5. Uhh, they all had a press conference right afterward.

and every Democrat in there said the same thing. Didn't you see the TeeVee?

Or is it you think they were all lying about what went on in their meeting?

[salguine]

3. I think a big part of that is because so many people have got so much

emotionally invested in him being The Savior that they thought he would be, that Obama could come into their homes and shoot their pets in front of them and they'd still try to rationalize it. When they've literally put everything in their heart and soul into the guy, and he turns out to be a complete fraud, massive, overwhelming denial reflexively kicks in. Although I haven't heard the "chess" theory lately; I guess nobody's buying that one anymore.