The fact that Obama said something doesn't mean it's a good idea

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There's a lot of finger-wagging "Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do" sentiment flying around.

The only people it makes sense to chastise along those lines are vociferous early Obama supporters who (inanely) cited him as the only valid progressive choice. (Ironic that the "he said he would and he meant it" sentiment mostly comes from folks who claimed exactly the opposite when it was expedient.)

But most people did not enter into an intellectual or moral contract a year ago that whatever Obama ever said is infallible doctrine.

Put another way, the fact that I voted for Obama rather than McCain does not oblige me to any position whatsoever except the literal, "I think Obama will be a better president than McCain."

Yes, Obama made it plain he would curry favor with backward bigots and morons. Yes, he made it plain that he would "reach out" to find common ground with a conservative movement that has less interest in America's well being than al Queda does.

Anyone who is surprised is in an idiot.

But the fact that we knew this would be his approach does not mean that we are required to think it's a good thing. DU was not unanimous on the wisdom of Obama's promised approach. There were literally thousands of posts saying he was in many ways the most right-leaning candidate in the primaries.

Yes, he's a great man. Yes, he will be an excellent president. And yes, his post-partisan bullshit is even more accommodationist than Clintonian triangulation. Always was.

And his accommodationist moves are excellent, albeit cynical politics. I accepted Bill Clinton's accommodations as necessary evils and I will accept Obama's as necessary evils.

But necessary evils are, by definition, evils.

Voting for one of two people is not a suicide pact. We can vote for someone as better than the alternative while knowing full well he is not perfect. And we can bitch about those imperfections because that's how a free society operates. (I hate the game, not the player. I like Obama. I dislike the fact that really rotten things can be excellent politics.)

[Truth2Tell]

1. K&R. Yes, can and will bitch. nt

[GarbagemanLB]

2. The problem is, many here apparently were surprised by a pick like this. That tells me many here

haven't read Obama's books.

[percussivemadness]

4. books? what you mean I should have read them so I could make an informed choice

rather than buy the hype?

I find that suggestion outrageous......:sarcasm:

[tyne]

5. You might have

actually listened to a few of his speeches.

[percussivemadness]

9. I did...as my mum always said "actions speak louder than words"

as such, I tend not to rely on speeches alone to make my decisions...

[QC]

3. Blasphemy! n/t

[Captain Hilts]

6. How he got labelled as THE true progressive among Dems, I'll never know.

[QC]

7. That's probably the greatest mystery of this whole campaign,

how arguably the most conservative of the major candidates appeared to so many to be a great progressive.

Strange, isn't it?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. prejudice is a two-way street

literally "pre-judgment"

All previous black candidates have been left-leaning. Big city candidates tend to be left-leaning. Younger candidates tend to be left-leaning. And people were desperate for some who had opposed the Iraq war in any form.

[QC]

11. Exactly! n/t

[mtnsnake]

15. Dennis Kucinich is THE true progressive among Dems. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

16. Yes. He and Edwards. But folks here followed the press's lead and ignored Edwards. nt

[Zenlitened]

8. This post does not meet True Believer standards.

It is sincere, uses logic to make a reasonable point, and is thoughtfully expressed.

But I'll K&R despite those "flaws." :hi:

[nichomachus]

12. Really rotten things are not "excellent politics"

They may succeed over the short term, but they are not excellent politics. Excellent politics is taking a position and supporting the people who supported you. You can reach across the aisle, but never never never at the expense of the people who got you where you are.

I sent Obama way too much money -- money I didn't have -- and now I feel betrayed. I could use that money badly. And, he got into office with my money and is now pandering to people who opposed him and is screwing me over.

That is not good politics. You want to know why? Because, I will think really hard about supporting any Dem in 2010. Feeling as I do now, I won't do it at all. Why bother?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. I'm defining politics only in electoral terms

As opposed to policy, governance, etc.

I think there's some evidence that crass centrism is an effective vote-getting strategy. No the only possible effective strategy, but one of the ones that works.

[nichomachus]

14. I am too

If you alienate your base to pander to people you can't really count on -- you are courting electoral disaster.

Obama has pissed of thousands of people who worked their asses off for him and donated money they didn't really have to donate. He's doing this in the hope of "reaching out" to people who could be turned against him with a couple of Sunday sermons, if the Christo-Nazis decide they want someone else.

I'm thinking he's calculating that those of us who are pissed off will vote for him anyway because we don't want the alternative.

In politics, that is a fatal error. It's called "taking your base for granted." You do that at your peril.

There is a certain comfort in having people you know are against you -- you know what you have to do and where they will come down on issues.

With someone like Obama, you don't know. He's your friend today, but will sell you out for political expediency tomorrow. That does not generate loyalty. In a perverse way, it's easier with the GOP in power. You know what they're going to do. With Obama, you'll never know until he and his advisers make their back-room decisions and do whatever they think will get the most votes. The GOP is principled. Their principles suck, but they do have them. Obama hasn't shown any so far.

[Schema Thing]

17. necessary evils are not, by definition, evil.

[percussivemadness]

18. nor are they by definition, necessary