The irony of Obama critics

[Radical Activist]

I can't get over the irony that the only Presidential candidate who has recently released a book about where he stands philosophically and how he feels regarding important issues of our day is constantly accused of not saying how he stands on issues and not giving substance. Its all there if people care to look for it instead of looking for cheap shots against a competing candidate.

Once again, repetitive framing beats our reality. Someone get George Lakoff on the phone! I expect this from the talk radio crowd but can't we put this baloney talking point to rest on DU?

[BL611]

1. Well I kind of despise Lakoff

but I do agree that the "We don't know where Obama stands" crowd is ridiculous, especially considering these are the same people who trash the MSM every chance they get when they say something they don't agree with.

[IntravenousDemilo]

17. What is it about Lakoff you dislike? n/m

[BL611]

19. I think the his stern father vs.

hippie hermaphrodite(OK slight exaggeration) parent model is patronizing and stupid, and completely wrong. Its about finding the middle between those two very poor extremes, not making the hippie hermaphrodite parent model more palatable.

Note: my intention is to insult Lakoff not hermaphrodites:hide:

[Radical Activist]

22. I do get tired

of the sexism in the way he identifies so many negative characteristics as inherently male. But, I think he makes some other great points.

[IntravenousDemilo]

26. I thought it was "stern father" vs "nurturing mother".

The middle between those gender extremes would be the hermaphrodite, wouldn't it...?

My instinct would be to err on the side of the nurturing mother rather than the stern father -- and the more errant, the better.

[Bitwit1234]

2. As I said about the trashing of Hillary

The republics don't have to swiftboat either of them the rest of the democrats in this country are doing it for them. They ought to concentrate on the republics and leave their own alone.

[jobycom]

3. That's the truth of it. nt

[lancdem]

5. I'm with you

[Buzz Clik]

6. "Republicans." Can we leave the childish games to the GOP asshats?

[patrice]

11. I have decided that it isn't wise to "tip your hand" so obviously.

I think it might work better to try to get in under the radar, with the facts, and let anything that could be useless or counterproductive go.

On edit: In case you're reading that both ways, I was trying to give lancdem some positive reasons to consider what you said.

[IntravenousDemilo]

18. I've read your post three times...

and I'm still at a bit of a loss as to what your post has to do with the post you're responding to (that is, #6).

[patrice]

20. True or not calling people "Republics" suggests a certain bias.

And a significant number of people will either entirely refuse to listen, or warp any fact you present from that point forward, based on their assumptions about your bias. **IF** the real point is in the value of the information/facts, **IF** the truth is more important than anything else, you've given yourself an un-necessary obstacle to the truth for which there is almost no remedy.

Thinking that doesn't matter, thinking we can just write those folks off (when we might have had at least some of them otherwise), thinking everything is about dividing everyone up into us vs. them, and being sure to punish anyone who disagrees, is a self-fulfilling prophecy and it's dysfunctional. It IS the very thing that "they" have done to us, the very reason we say they should not be in power, and if "we" turn around and do it to them, if we act as though division and punishment are the first priority and make the truth secondary or tertiary in the process, it is only a matter of time before we're on the bottom again. And we'll deserve it.

[patrice]

24. i.e. Don't play THEIR game. Play your own.

[IntravenousDemilo]

25. All right, well, that's kind of what BuzzClik said, and I agree, but I'm not sure what you're

referring to when you talk of "tipping your hand" and "getting in under the radar". It just seems to have nothing to do with whether someone calls Republicans "Republics", that's all.

Myself, I prefer "red-eyed vomit-eaters".

[Totallybushed]

4. The bad guys will

use anything. It doesn't have to be logical, or consistent.

[Buzz Clik]

7. It doesn't even have to be the truth or any part of it.

[Totallybushed]

23. We see it everyday, n/t

[patrice]

8. Keep trying to balance the dialectic and trust that many people

will be able to see the destructivists for what they are. You're probably not going to see any given hard-head start acting and speaking rationally, but you can and will affect the group.

And don't let anyone tell you that the middle (the synthesis) is intrinsically soft. Yes, a lot of wimps have been hanging out there, hiding behind the label "moderate", but REAL synthesis consists of the ability to recognize and validate two polarities equally and construct out of them something new. This takes more strength than being at either pole. The candidate who can actually do this for honest real has my vote.

[ripple]

9. I also find it ironic

that many of the same people who claim they "won't allow the corporate media to tell them who to vote for" are doing that very thing when they refuse to consider a candidate who happens to be receiving a lot of media attention.

And somehow, I don't think those who dismiss Obama as a product of the media would exactly appreciate having the candidate that they themselves support portrayed as a radical Islamist, compared to a brutal dictator, confused with the man who orchestrated the murder of thousands of US citizens, and even associated with a pedophile.

Yep, the media just LOVES Barack. :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

10. Yeah, it isn't it great...

We finally have a progressive candidate with the charisma and skill to get media coverage, and all people can do is claim it makes him a sell-out. Just think about how self-defeating that attitude is. It guarantees that if one of our own ever begins to succeed that we will tare him down.

Some people feel more righteous if they can back a candidate that will never be accepted by the majority. It makes them part of the 'holier than thou' progressive club.

[bluehighways911]

12. Exactly

And one thing you can be sure, those that talk about lack of substance, never even heard him speak.

They simply read the standard slime line and then repeat it like they just thought of it.

Barak Obama was known by 1% of people here in Illinois when he first ran. He earned it and became a wonderful Senator. Meets with us and actually listens.

Barak Obama is for real and America will flock to him.

[Radical Activist]

16. Right on

Barack had stiff competition when he ran in the US Senate primary and he won for a good reason.

[Adelante]

13. There is no reason for us not to critique our candidates

It's our responsibility in primary campaigns. I have only one or two problems with Obama, so far; not enough for me to not support him, I have problems with every candidate. But I do not know Obama as well as I do others, so I have more to learn about him. I hope everyone here questions every candidate on issues that are important to them. That said, I don't agree with saying a candidate I haven't vetted myself, for my own concerns, doesn't have substance on issues. It's my bad if I don't find out.

[thoughtcrime1984]

14. Well put, WesDem

[Radical Activist]

15. I'll agree with that.

Repeating discredited talking points is not critiquing, which is what I have a problem with.

[GeorgeGist]

21. Words alone ...

do not prove substance. But Obama's getting better because his substance has been challenged.

[IndianaGreen]

27. The problem is that the critics are not literate enough to read a book

above the level of My Pet Goat.

Why do you think they hate the Harry Potter books? Too many letters!

[Ethelk2044]

29. I Agree

[Radical Activist]

31. Oh I don't know...

We've got a Kucinich person over hear who insist that Obama isn't in favor of universal health care even though he made it clear that he does in his announcement speech, other speeches, and in his book. BUT, he doesn't have a detailed plan up yet on her medium of choice, his website. That's pretty ridiculously nit-picky. For some people, it doesn't matter what a person does. If it isn't their favorite candidate, they'll find some excuse to criticize.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=227722&mesg_id=255594

[beaconess]

28. THANK you!

I've been just as frustrated as you are about this bizarre inconsistency.

I think people are just lazy. They don't want to go through the trouble of actually READING Obama's book - too much like work. They'd rather Obama personally tell them where he stands on the issues he cares about - sort of like their very own private book on tape.

A month or so ago, I started a thread urging people to read "Dreams From My Father." I actually got attacked by someone who insisted that he had no intention of reading it and if I wanted him to know what was in it, I should put it in a post!

[IndianaGreen]

30. I remember that incident

The poster took issue with you saying that you were peddling Obama's book, and that he wasn't going to buy it in order to read it. A very bizarre poster!

I posted a response telling this individual to go to the public library and check the book out. No response!

I can only guess that the poster prefers the neatly packaged sound bites one gets from what passes as news media nowadays. Apparently reading and analytical thinking were not in his/her nature.