Something I don't understand. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

[Sapphocrat]

Inspired by a subthread in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5857494

...about how you can't judge a candidate by his supporters. By now this has become an ancient argument, but it is one that continues to puzzle me.

We all know this part by rote:

1. If you base your vote on the behavior of any candidate's supporters, you are a moron / crybaby / etc., etc.

We also know these oft-repeated Obama themes by rote:

2. Obama is a "blank screen" on which you are all supposed to project your hopes and dreams.

3. Obama is going to lead not from the top down, but from the bottom up — taking his direction from you, his followers.

Numbers 2 and 3, it has been said by many Obama supporters, are precisely what gives you "hope" after such a long period of hopelessness and cynicism: Finally, you tell the rest of us, you will have a government (and here I paraphrase, but I believe my understanding is essentially correct) that is truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

See, I have been listening.

This is what confounds me: How can you (Obama supporters) tell the rest of us (and do you ever tell us, every chance you get!) that Obama is all about empowering you, about building the government you want, about taking his direction from you...

...while simultaneously trying to convince us not to judge the man by his supporters?

If Obama is placing himself in your hands, and not the other way around, is that supposed to be any sort of comfort to a non-Obama supporter like me, after so many of you have told me I'm old, irrelevant, stupid, racist, a Republican, a paleofeminist, a one-issue queer with an axe to grind, and not needed (or wanted) to build this grand, new American society you envision?

Nope, I'm not being the least bit snarky. I'm trying to make you understand something: You can't tell me on one hand that Obama is making himself out to be the empty vessel you will fill, and then on the other defend your disdain for non-Obama supporters by insisting that your candidate does not reflect you.

Because, all along, you've been telling me he does reflect you.

I won't bother to give you my conclusions, because you won't want to hear them, and I don't feel like getting into a flamewar tonight.

I just want to try to make Obama supporters (at least, the two or three who don't have me on ignore) understand the contradictory message you've been sending out all along: Either Obama is the blank screen for your hopes and dreams, or he isn't. If he is, then he reflects you. If he isn't, then you're wrong about the meaning of his "from the bottom up" message. And I'm taking the meaning of "from the bottom up" from your many posts on the subject. (Yes, I can give you links until your eyes bleed — I just don't feel like wasting the rest of my evening digging them up for what I know is already an unappreciative, hostile audience.)

If Obama is the nominee (and if by some miracle he beats McCain), I hope you're dead wrong about just how much influence your "movement" is going to have on a President Obama, because, frankly, as long as he is in office, I will feel about as welcome in your America as I did in Bush's.

No, I take that back: I will feel less welcome in your America. In Bush's America, the Republicans hated me. In your America, the Republicans will still hate me, and so will half of all Democrats.


P.S. No, I don't want to get into a discussion of what I think of Candidate Obama, so don't try to get me off on that tangent. And the first person who does a "But Hillary supporters...!" deflection post immediately goes on ignore.

[Writer]

1. I'm in much agreement.

Unless Clinton is on the ticket, I simply am drained of willpower to contribute or campaign for the Democratic ticket. I will vote Democratic in November, but forget the rest.

I just don't have the energy, the willpower, and the willingness to work beside people who have been so cruel and acerbic.

This is from my heart.

~Writer~

[BlooInBloo]

3. Bye.

[dogday]

94. Are you leaving????

BlooinPoo, are you leaving us...

[TheWraith]

12. Here's your ball. Bye bye.

Seriously, do you understand how childish that sounds? That's not intended as an insult, it's reality. The Clinton campaign ran one of the dirtiest, nastiest, most divisive and downright abusive campaigns in recent memory. Then people have the temerity to act like they deserve to be treated nicely while they've been busy insulting and denigrating others, mocking hopes for something other than partisan gridlock, and an alternative to warmongering and Bush-style diplomacy.

Seriously... a sense of perspective is needed.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. And a lot of people

think your description of her campaign is just wrong. I think both campaigns have been fairly clean, and certainly neither one has a monopoly on the high road. You just blame clinton for everything that happens, and absolve Obama. It's silly partisan blindness.

[shadowknows69]

59. What you just said is silly partisan blindness.

If you really can't see, everyone else can, that Clinton ran a cruddier campaign by far. Led by an adoring media. It wasn't "snipergate" that was on TV for the last two weeks was it? Jeremiah the Prophet didn't say as many words as Jerry the Pastor did.

[nashville_brook]

81. my fave cruddy moment: "i don't know if he's Christian." Hillary on 60 Minutes

took me back to middle school fights on the playground.

[dsc]

96. that is a flat out bald faced lie

she didn't say that.

[MonkeyFunk]

86. not everyone sees what you see

Your side sees it that way. But your side is only about half the party. MY side sees the attempt to paint the Clintons as racists to be a dirty, low blow. We see "grassroot" smears like the edited Kantor video to be awful, and even worse, the way you guys jumped on it so readily.

You guys have run a scorched earth campaign against Clinton. You were never content to defeat her - you've tried to destroy her.

[shadowknows69]

88. I didn't jump on shit and I even posted a thread saying I thought the Kantor thing was BS

And you're still blind. Willful ignorance must be a wonderful trait to possess. Reality sucks.

[TheWraith]

91. Nobody forced the Clintons to cast the election in racial terms.

Obama tried to stay a mile away from things having to do with race. Unless you think that Obama forced Bill Clinton to compare him to Jesse Jackson, or forced them to pander to conservative rural whites, or to stoke friction between blacks and latinos, your idea that somehow the Clintons were victimized by a smear campaign holds no water.

[MonkeyFunk]

109. There's nothing inherently racist

in making the comparison to Jesse jackson. It was a valid comparison - Jackson won the state twice, and he wasn't born there. That made it a better comparison than John Edwards. Obama's side made it a racial issue, just as they did with "fairy tale", which was a ridiculous stretch. And it's still going on -look at the board today. ANY reference to the demographics of this race is portrayed as clinton being a racist. It's absurd.

[TheWraith]

90. Well, those people are wrong.

If you'd like a list.... Four surrogates trying to bring up his teenaged drug use in a row, within a period of as many days. A Clinton co-chair in Iowa circulating the Muslim smear. Clinton herself issuing a deliberately tepid "He's not a Muslim to my knowledge" statement on national television. Piling on to BS Fox News stories about tenuous connections like Ayers and Rezko. Pulling out the Karl Rove playbook at every stop, such as to imply that Obama's weak on terrorism and if you elect him, you'll die. Allying themselves with Scaife and Limbaugh. Saying the Republican is qualified and Obama isn't.

I could go on like this for awhile.

Conversely, I don't recall Obama surrogates pushing the idea that Hillary is a lesbian, or that she murdered Vince Foster, or bashing her for having fundraisers who are being prosecuted, or doing any of the sorts of things the Clinton campaign did.

Look, I'd rather not re-fight these battles. It's over. But rewriting history and whitewashing the campaign is simply not acceptable. Any objective observer would recognize that there was a lot of filth in this campaign, and 90% of it came from the Clinton side. It's what turned off fair and even Clinton-favoring people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, who promptly got called biased because they talked about the elephant in the room.

[democracy1st]

14. would you at least say it goes both ways

[roguevalley]

78. rest up. if McCain wins on this sort of sentiment, I hope you don't

have draft aged kids in your family. keep that in mind when you think you can't do the next part. I do.

[Writer]

80. McCain cannot win in this environment. There's too much working against him. n/t

[Dhalgren]

87. I am equally worried about Obama and the draft.

He is a supporter of the "War on Terra" and he is not anti-war...

[JTFrog]

110. Not an ounce of reality in your post.

:wtf:

[Dhalgren]

111. I feel sorry for anyone who will not listen

to the candidates' actual words. Instead of assuming that Obama believes just as you do, why not pay attention to what he actually says and what he actually does not say? I am sorry but I have never heard him say he was anti-war, just that the Iraq war was 'wrong". He supports and wants to expand the war and occupation of Afghanistan. He has said that in regard to Iran "no options" were off the table. He has said that he might have to order the invasion of Pakistan. He hasn't even said that he would withdraw all troops from Iraq - he has only said "all combat troops". What, exactly, does that mean?

Do you still say that there is "not an ounce of reality" in my post? If so, please correct me.

[murielm99]

2. Great post.

I think the part of the issue is that many Obama supporters have never been through a primary or an election before. They don't understand the political process. They haven't figured out that we all need to come together when this is over.

I second what you said about "But Hillary supporters..." I probably have most of those on ignore already.

[Writer]

4. I think it became such a personal exercise for many.

It wasn't just a disagreement, it was a complete application of one's ego. In other words, I believe many took very personally when others questioned their nominee, and that in turn created a vindictive atmosphere where no longer was this a discussion of merit, but of egoism and narcissism.

[musicblind]

27. Thank you Writer, I made a post about that a long time ago.

That has been the problem with this from the get go. People started to take criticism of a candidate as a personal insult. On both sides. Politics isn't that personal. You are basically hiring the CEO of a company. You're not hiring a friend, someone that reminds you of yourself, or a really likeable person, you're hiring the person you think is most qualified and will do the best job. Period. In reality there are very few differences between Clinton and Obama regarding platform. So the supporters had to start attacking the candidates personalities... and likewise the personalities of the people who support those candidates.

It is never appropriate to call someone a "name" on this board. I have never done so. It is never appropriate to "ignore" people you disagree with. I have never done so. It just goes to show you the environment that DU has become. Hopefully things will get better, but I do not know if Obama supporters can undo the damage they have done to Clinton. If Obama loses in November (which I hope he does not) it will be their fault for the way they have conducted themselves. As for Obama and Clinton, both of them ran rather decent, and fair campaigns, despite Obama supporters (and Clinton supporters) latching onto every tiny thing they could think of and making mountains out of mole-hills over and over.

[TheWraith]

13. Ah, casual condescension, how would I live without thee?

Of course, you probably don't notice your casual insult to Obama supporters, since after all it's only Obama supporters who are mean and acerbic, never good wholesome Clinton supporters. Nor do you test your statement against reality, say by noticing that many if not most Obama supporters on DU are long time members and hardly new political participants.

Lastly, if you're expecting something more than an acceptance onto the bandwagon by Obama supporters, then I believe you're mistaken. There's not a lot of goodwill towards the Clinton supporters on here. You want to complain about that, go over to HillaryIs44.org and check out the people who you've been allied with. There's nothing at all comparable on the other side.

[Binka]

38. I Have Been Through A Primary Or Two I Understand The Political Process

You have some issues Muriel. And quite frankly you disgust me.

[Sapphocrat]

50. Thank you, muriel.

You're about to get-- whoops, I see it's already happened --dumped on, big-time.

But I hear you. I love me some fiery youthful passion -- but with some 30-plus years of political activism behind me, I haven't forgotten a minute of "Get the hell out of the way, you old fogies! You screwed it up for our generation!" anger of my own youth.

It passes... and they, as I do now, will one day sit back, cluck their tongues, and "rue the day."

:patriot:

[Binka]

85. You Are Pandering To A Racist This Has NOTHING To Do With Age

You disgust me too.

[Sapphocrat]

104. Thanks for proving my point.

You won't respond to my OP, you won't even tell me you think my ideas are stupid -- no, I simply "disgust" you, apparently for responding positively to a post by a DUer you have condemned as a racist.

(Hey, is it my turn now to condemn you as a homophobe? After all, you just attacked me ad hominem -- not my thoughts, not my ideas, not my words -- but me. I guess you must hate lesbians. :shrug:)

Yep, you've really grasped the concept of Obama's "unity" message. :eyes:

But thanks for bringing up another contradiction I've seen again and again: How can you latch onto a campaign that's supposed to be based on unity, and respect for one another, and making sure everyone has a voice... and then demonstrate your grasp on the basic theme by telling another human being "You disgust me"?

Not that I haven't lost it and called a fellow Democrat a "piece of shit" on more than one occasion -- but I'm not claiming the high ground Obama supporters are supposed to live up to, either... if, that is, they really believe in the "unity" theme.

I guess you don't.

[mtnsnake]

83. Well said, muriel

and don't pay any attention to poster #38 who is just a longtime ignorant freeper troll who has never had a good thing to say about anyone.

[Jamastiene]

5. Dayum,

yer good. I bow to you. :thumbsup:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I especially agree with this part:

"If Obama is the nominee (and if by some miracle he beats McCain), I hope you're dead wrong about just how much influence your "movement" is going to have on a President Obama, because, frankly, as long as he is in office, I will feel about as welcome in your America as I did in Bush's.

No, I take that back: I will feel less welcome in your America. In Bush's America, the Republicans hated me. In your America, the Republicans will still hate me, and so will half of all Democrats."

That hostility from Obama supporters is yet another huge reason I voted for Hillary today.

[Writer]

6. Yup...

it's purely cause and effect. Many were rude because they believe that the ends justify the means. Little do they know that the result of the negative online discourse has turned many off. Luckily Obama will not have too much trouble against the likes of John McCain, but there will be a large group of Clinton supporters who won't feel too inclined to fight as hard as they would have if the atmosphere hadn't been so poisonous.

[murielm99]

8. There are many good state and local candidates

who will still need our support. Get out and work for them if these Obama followers have turned you off.

Somehow, I don't think that Obama will have very big coattails if he is the nominee. Some of the crossovers and first time voters might vote the top of the ticket and forget the rest, out of ignorance, spite or naivete.

[Writer]

10. I used to work for the Democratic candidate for my district here in CO,

But I'm having to move because of school, etc. You're absolutely right - Congress is a great place to put our energies.

Go Democrats!

[dansolo]

37. Why do you insist on insulting new voters?

We should be encouraging new voters, but it is the Clinton supporters who seem to be content not only with keeping voter turnout low, but have been actively discouraging young voters from getting involved. This is something that should be nurtured and celebrated, as higher voter turnout invariably is good for the Democratic Party.

This is the kind of crap that makes it very hard for me to be at all sympathetic towards Clinton supporters. They act as if they are in a clique, and that no one is allowed to join (unless they swear their allegiance first).

[saracat]

9. Me to.This hits home.

[Sapphocrat]

51. Jama, I just love ya.

And I didn't forget this was YOUR DAY to vote.

You're the best, babe. :)

[saracat]

7. You have nailed it! Thank you!

[Sapphocrat]

48. Thank you, saracat.

You've been a helluva trooper, and your kudos mean a lot. :patriot:

[barack the house]

11. That universal "you" is not exclusively Obama supporters. So condemnation of "you" is ourselves.

His campaign is ultimately saying that every American can be part of that change regardless of candidate or party.

[murielm99]

16. That makes no sense.

My dyed in the wool republican neighbors are voting for McCain. They are not part of any change and have no desire for it.

[K8-EEE]

20. They probably voted for Bush too and therefore

they are total morons.

We need to stop following them and pandering to them....Barrack is getting out the youth vote, getting out the Urban vote, getting out a lot of people who never have voted, and that is going to make your neighbors totally irrelevant. Which is good.

[murielm99]

21. Excuse me?

Every American can be part of change regardless of candidate or party.

That is the post I responded to, and it had nothing to do with what you replied. I do not pander to bush voters or republicans. I was simply asking the poster above me to explain his/her incomprehensible statement.

[musicblind]

29. but calling anyone whose voting choice we disagree with, even bush supporters

morons is not the kind of language needed. As much as I hate Bush, we should all be above the fray. They may be making poor choices in our opinions, they may not be informed voters, and they may be voting against their best interests. Personally I think Bush is an evil man, but my parents voted for him. I begged them not to, but they did. It doesn't make the morons. It makes them southern baptists who believe in conservative ideals.


The same as calling Hillary supporters morons (which some on this board have done), that doesn't help. It doesn't make them want to vote for Obama. (though I will, and will support him completely if he is the GE nominee which it now looks certain he will be.) We shouldn't talk down to people, no matter who we support, we should talk WITH people. That is how you change minds, win friends, and influence others.

[boppers]

15. Got a blog? Do you read the comments?

Obama thinks the president should have one.

...and that the president should read the comments.

It's about Obama, as a man, subverting a massive historical record of top-down patriarchy, and finding views and consensus among the group.

The group will have screamers, whiners, bigots, and trolls, but he will listen to the *group*.

That's what makes him powerful. It's not that everybody's voice is obeyed, but that everybody has a voice.


edit: tpyo

[knixphan]

17. bingo.

[OzarkDem]

19. You must be kidding

You think because he wants to have a "blog" and will allow people to post "comments" that he will listen or consider them, especially if what you're asking for runs counter to what his corporate sponsors want?

Please, try to get serious about politics instead of falling for gimmicks.

[boppers]

25. "corporate sponsors"???

Okay, if Obama is all NASCAR-ish, what is on his suit/car?

Alternately, what was on Hillary, before she lost any chance of winning?

[Sapphocrat]

26. I wouldn't expect Obama to have time to futz around online...

...and if he does, I'll be very worried he's not attending to the far more pressing tasks of running the nation. (I also won't believe for one second that he's actually writing his own blog, any more than he's writing every word of his own speeches.)

But that's really neither here nor there.

I appreciate your reasoned reply, boppers, but the things that reassure you are exactly the things that disturb me, deeply:

It's about Obama, as a man, subverting a massive historical record of top-down patriarchy, and finding views and consensus among the group.

The group will have screamers, whiners, bigots, and trolls, but he will listen to the *group*.

And that is the problem. By inviting my oppressors in, he has alienated me.

No, it's not all about me. But it is personal. Very personal.

There are two things I'd like you to think about, boppers. First is a quote from Karl Popper — the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of which is in the first line: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance."

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/01/21/the-right-not-to-tolerate-the-intolerant/

The second is the old adage (the original source of which is long forgotten): "If you try to please everyone, you please no one."

...a.k.a. "You can't be all things to all people."

You know, I might have an ounce of respect for Obama if he would just come out and admit he has "closed his ears" to me. But he won't. He keeps pretending that my voice is equal to anyone else's, when it is clearly not.

If you need it in one word, that word is "McClurkin."

I expect you cannot possibly understand how much the McClurkin slap hurts. How deeply the sting goes. It's not that ol' Obama-supporter fallback, "faux outrage"; we're talking about embracing not one delusional "ex-gay"; we are talking about embracing an entire "movement" (the antigay one, that is, and a particularly damaging, dangerous arm of it) at the expense of my people.

That's what makes him powerful. It's not that everybody's voice is obeyed, but that everybody has a voice.

Oh, sure, I have a voice... which, Obama has shown, repeatedly, he will entertain as one entertains the idiot child of one's employer.

I don't want to be entertained. I don't want to be patronized. I want to be heeded. I want him to recognize that MY oppression is just as valid as HIS PARENTS' oppression the day HE was born.

He does not. He takes his privilege for granted, while remaining — whether for political purposes or out of fear of his god — blissfully ignorant of how his parents were scorned the way we are scorned today.

(Don't you DARE give me any shit, ANYONE, about how our struggle isn't equal to yours. We were born just as gay as you were born black, white, Asian, whatever.)

Pop quiz, class! Who are these people?:



You don't know how much I'd love to ask Obama how he has the Audacity to declare OUR lives, OUR love, OUR marriages less worthy of validation, recognition, and, most important, deserving of legal protection, than HIS and Michelle's, after reading aloud the words of the recently-departed Mildred Loving (does he even know who she was?) just last year. Read it... and weep:

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html

So Obama pretends to be completely clueless about the damage he has wrought on my life, and my people. By his... inability? refusal? cowardice? ...to condemn to hell the religionists who condemn me — in the same way ass-backwards religionists condemned HIS parents — he has lost me.

And I'm the last in a long line of 20th-century, second-wave immigrants (yeah, us stupid, blue-collar farmers, butchers, and blackboots who built this country from the dirt up, the hated "brown people") of unwavering, FDR-and-Kennedy-worshipping Democrats. (Translation for alla you not just offa da boat: You can't get more Democratic-with-a-capital-D than me, kids.)

He doesn't give a damn about me, boppers. He doesn't give a damn about every teenager who's tried to cut his wrists because he failed to be "delivered from homosexuality."

He's too cowed by his god, his religion, his homophobic "Ewwww!" factor — whatever the hell his real problem with us is — but in the end, he does NOT listen to me. He does NOT have my best interests at heart. He places homophobic bigots ABOVE ME. I cannot deny that, spin that, no matter how much I wanted to "believe," just as his "true believers" do now.

I wanted to believe. I really wanted to.

The only difference between coming out of Catholic guilt and awakening to the sham that is Barack "I'm Whatever You Want Me to Be!" Obama is that it didn't take me 30 years to stop feeling guilty about following the herd, because that's what the herd told me I was supposed to do.

[musicblind]

31. That a picture of Mildred Loving and Richard Loving who's case on interacial marriage

made great strides on marriage rights?



Edit: oops, shoulda read your link. you explained who they were. sry. replied too fast. :sheepish:

[Sapphocrat]

33. Don't feel sheepish, mb -- feel proud.

You recognized two tough Americans 99% of the population probably never would. (99.99999% if Jay Leno took it to the street.)

Well done. :patriot:

[boppers]

34. What a beautiful post.

I mean it.

:hug:

On to the gritty work.

Yes, your (and my) oppressors will have a seat at the table.

That does not mean they set the agenda, or control the future.. They have a seat. So will I. And you.

Secondly, "If you try to please everyone, you please no one." is false, vacant, and senseless. "If you try to please everyone, nobody will be totally happy" is closer to the truth.

As far as mentioning McClurkin, and suggesting that Obama is not listening, let me say the following.

He (McClurkin) was, and likely is, Bi. While I know that's "uncool" to a lot of GLBT, it's out there.

Not only was the dude Bi, but married. To a woman. Who didn't know who he was. And then he started cheating on her, with men.

He stopped. Then blamed...everything. (A curse? Do people still believe in that shit? Well, since they still believe in god, heaven and hell.... who knows.)

McClurkin isn't the enemy, being closeted is.

Not an easy thing in the AA community, research "down low" for details.

Finally, yeah, I dunno how much experience Obama or Hilary has with same-sex partners.

That's why they need to have channels to listen to us.

[OzarkDem]

18. Very good points

The hatred and intolerance of Obama and his campaign are on par with the right wing.

[VotesForWomen]

22. yep; at a certain point you have to assume that a candidate's supporters reflect on him, and in Obam

obama's case, it's not a pretty reflection.

[Dems to Win]

24. I'll share with you something I wrote a couple of months ago on HuffPo

To all HRC supporters who feel driven away from ever supporting Obama due to the negativity of the anti-Hillary posts, I urge you to reconsider holding Obama responsible.

I've made somepretty scathing comments about HRC. I'm infuriated by her comments that she and McCain pass the CiC test and Obama has a speech. It's fine to criticize Obama, but not to denigrate him in comparison to McCain.

But I'm not a huge Obama fan -- he's my third choice this season, after my first 2 dropped out. Rather, I have been ABC (Anybody but Clinton) from the beginning.

I want a Democrat to win in the fall. I don't think there is any way HRC can win. She is toxic on the ballot, in my view. The HIllary Haters will flock to the polls to vote for McCain. I want her to bow out gracefully and unify the party so we can win.

I also want her to accept adult responsibility for failing to do the math and consequently running a lousy campaign. She ran as if this were a state by state winner-take-all contest, as it will be in the fall. She failed to try to increase her vote in states where she knew she was going to lose, instead just writing them off. The proportional apportionment of delegates made that a very foolish move. Obama has won huge blowouts, and even when he's lost, he's worked to keep the margin to a minimum.

While I want HRC to exit stage left, I respect and admire many people I know to be HRC supporters. Including my own congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey.

some additional comments:

people on Internet boards are a very, very small subset of Obama supporters. These boards always attract people who like to argue. Sometimes vehemently and nastily.

When Obama gets elected, I'm sure he'll have the good sense to listen to his constituents who are reasonable and civilized. :) And the well-behaved people will be the ones to become leaders of Obama activists who pressure the Democratic congress to enact the BEST reforms. Like single-payer health care, I hope.

[Connonym]

28. I'm sorry that you feel that way

Neither Obama nor Hillary is my first choice but, as I was with Kerry and Gore and every Democratic candidate, I am throwing myself 100% behind the Democratic candidate because I believe that the party in power is more important than the person in power. I believe that ANY Democratic president is going to be more representative of my America than any republican could ever be. I understand getting personally excited about a candidate, I was that way about John Edwards, but to give up the whole party because your candidate didn't win? I don't think that says a lot about your faith in the party. I don't believe that my fellow Americans will fail to elect whomever is the eventual Democratic nominee. I think that die hard republicans are going to vote for the GOP no matter what. Nothing we can do about that. I DO believe that my fellow Americans (the majority of us) are above judging a candidate by sex or by race. I believe that the president doesn't act in a vacuum, he will be influenced by the party, the people, the representatives we elect. We do have the power to put the wind behind the sail of our Democratic president and we can and will regain some of the ground we have lost in the last 8 years. I'm really at a loss to understand why you will feel less accepted in a Obama presidency than you do in a W presidency. I cannot even fathom that. You're perfectly entitled to feel that way, I'm just sorry that you do and that you can't see that anything is better than W, that the only chance for our country to heal, to regain some respect in the world at large, is to elect a Democrat, stop torture, end the war, re institute or civil rights and liberties, etc. Your world must seem to be a very dark place. I'm sorry that you feel that way.

[Sapphocrat]

35. Some corrections.

1) I am a "Hillary supporter" only by default. Hillary, Obama -- they're both DLC corporatists, whose voting records are nearly indistinguishable. I am "for" HRC only because the prospect of Obama makes me want to vomit. (SERIES, HUGH.) If you don't understand why, then A) search all my posts on DU from, say, last October on, and/or B) read every word I've written about Obama here.

Hillary is not "my candidate." Dennis was.

2) For me, this election cycle has never had anything to do with either race or sex. Believe that or not as you like; if Obama were gay, I could not dislike nor disagree with him, his policies, his pandering, his tactics, any more than I do right now.

I know it is the trend to brand those of us who cannot support him as "racists," but the truth is that I could no more relate to, nor support, him if he were a brown, blue-collar, second-generation Italian-American, queer Californian, just like me. His policies, positions, and pandering (hey! The Three P's!) killed everything for me. I would vote for anyone who agreed with my core values -- the bottom-line dealbreakers -- regardless of race, sex, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, religion, Vietnam veteran status, everything-on-the-latest-list. I'd vote for anyone as long I believed in him or her, and what he/she stood for. I do NOT believe in Obama, based on his words and actions, and nothing else. Period.

If you cannot "understand why (I) will feel less accepted in a Obama presidency than (I) do in a W presidency," re-read my OP. Under Bush, only the Repukes hated me. Under Obama, the Repukes will still hate me -- but fully half of what was my own party will hate me ON TOP OF the Repukes. What's not clear about that?

As for this: "...you can't see that anything is better than W, that the only chance for our country to heal, to regain some respect in the world at large, is to elect a Democrat, stop torture, end the war, re institute or civil rights and liberties, etc. Your world must seem to be a very dark place. I'm sorry that you feel that way" ... you are putting words in my mouth.

Stop that. Stop projecting onto me (what appears to me) your rationalization for feeling as I do.

If you want to understand, ask me questions -- do not project. I will answer honestly and truthfully.

But hurry up. As I've promised, once Skinner has deemed Obama the "presumptive nominee," I'm logging off, permanently. (Much to the joy of many Obama supporters, I expect.)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

39. Ok, which policies do you disagree with?

Specifically, which policies does he differ with Clinton on to such a huge degree?

[Sapphocrat]

44. For starters...

From memory -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: He threatened to send ground troops into Pakistan. He said nothing (nukes?) was off the table with Iran.

His flip-flopping on his own policies does not inspire my confidence:

Take One: He co-sponsors the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, which says the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization.

Take Two: He's willing to meet — “without precondition” — with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (never mind that Obama claims an "unshakable commitment" to Israel, and never mind that Ahmadinejad has made his intent to annihilate the State of Israel quite clear... ehhh... can you say "disconnect"?), Kim Jong Il, et al.

Take Three: He supports Bush's refusal to meet with Hamas because “Hamas is a terrorist organization.” (Eeeeeks!... Never mind that Ahmadinejad funds, trains, and sends weaponry to Hamas! Never mind that!)

Take Four: He criticizes Jimmy Carter (Mr. Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty Broker) for meeting with Hamas, for the same reason.

Don't even get me started on his backstabbing of the LGBT community. Do not get me started on that.

And don't get me started on how he comes down on real racists, while turning a blind eye to rabid homophobes and misogynists.

So, let's hit a "minor" issue instead: marijuana.

As I summarized on my blog:

In 2004, Barack was in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

In 2007, Barack was not in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

In 2008 ... Barack was in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

His campaign, forgetting all about the debate last fall, said Barack was always in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

But then, “before the day was over,” Barack was not in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. Again.

That's just off the top of my head. Want more?

Heh... And some folks call me a "one-issue voter," as if I didn't pay attention to anything but my own little narcissistic, homo-oriented "wedge" issues. Funny that, eh?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. Fair enough.

I just wanted to know how he differs from Clinton. They are very similar in their policies. I could pull up flip flops from Clinton, but the point is not to change your mind. I asked you answered. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[Sapphocrat]

53. De nada. :) n/t

[beezlebum]

61. well...

1) no nukes; when he talked about iran, he also said that under no circumstances would using nukes be acceptable, and that nukes are, in fact, OFF the table.

he did not "threaten" to send troops into pakistan. he said military strikes would be an option. difference in saying, "we will obliterate," and saying, "it's a possibility."

2/3/4) take a strong stance, but be diplomatic.

Hamas/Jimmy Carter- same thing- that is a very touchy subject, and it's hard to take sides in that mess. i hope obama does live up to his word and meet with our "enemies."

i don't agree with obama on everything. in fact, i'll admit he is too conservative for my blood, and while he walks a fine line between my feelings on foreign policy (DIPLOMACY and non-military intervention) and kinda sorta points the way wrong direction (tough talk sabre rattles and acknowledging "the possibility"), i have to hope that maybe this is only an effort appeal to those *Co has gotten paranoid, and hopefully whom he will smooth things over with by being a calming factor via diplomacy. but i admit, also, that perhaps it's not just talk, that his "flip flops" (i guess) could indicate otherwise. (what really never sat well with me was hillary's consistent war/aggressive stance)/

however, i'm so ready for * to be OVER, i'm ready to concede my very liberal beliefs in favor of progressing to a new day. we have been in this dark nightmare for the better part of a decade.

and i won't get you started on the rest, because, yeah, i think those are only distractions and wedges AT THIS POINT. i don't think that necessarily makes you a one-issue voter. i agree that they are absolutely crucial, they are vital, they are civil rights, and that no human being should be denied equal fair treatment, but the fact is i do believe obama is going to listen to the people for a change- these are the issues we will focus on once we get the albatross OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE and a DEMOCRAT IN IT.

[NashVegas]

70. Obama Goes Through Positions Like Jenna Jameson

It kills me.

[Sapphocrat]

105. ...!

:spray:

I've got to remember that line!

[Connonym]

40. okay

first of all, I wasn't implying that you were racist, what I meant was that I didn't believe that race nor gender would prevent either Hillary nor Obama from successfully winning the general election. I believe that the vast majority of us are beyond that stuff.

I understand the rationale you give for feeling that you'll be less accepted, what I don't understand is why you feel that half of the democrats will not accept you? Is this because you will not support Obama if he is the eventual democratic candidate?

I haven't yet but will read your previous posts about Obama. That will perhaps give me a better understanding of where you're coming from. I haven't involved myself too much with the fighting between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. The way I understand it their positions are pretty similar so, given that, I went on my gut instinct as to who I felt was the best promise. My gut said Obama and I look forward to reading what you have to say regarding why you dislike him. But I was earnest when I said that I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. I'm a kumbaya sort of dork and I want us all to be able to get along and be happy and work together to defeat the plague W has infested on America. Again, I haven't yet (but will) read your previous remarks, but I honestly don't understand why we can't all come together, regardless of the candidate, and try to defeat the real enemy and continue on fighting for the specific changes we want to see with our selection of senators and representatives.

I'm not being insincere when I say that I AM honestly sorry that your feelings regarding Obama are so strong that you feel it will prevent you from feeling included in the democratic party. As die-hard liberal, I believe that there's room for all of us in the party. We obviously don't all agree on 100% of everything but by the default position of a 2-party system we have to stick together with the people we agree most with. And now I'm going to go read your previous postings and I look forward to learning your your thoughts. But before I do so, before you permanently sign off of DU I wish you would reconsider the thought that "half the party" will not accept you because it's out of the realm of my imagination why we would not accept you.

ETA Okay, I've read some of your grievances against Obama. I couldn't agree with you more that religion has no place in government. You mention catholic guilt, I was raised a catholic, I no longer consider myself religious but even when I did "believe" I rejected half of the doctrine as bullshit. Is your hatred of Obama solely based on his pastor's words or has he (Obama) acknowledged an anti-gay bias? I have not heard anything to that regard but I won't pretend to be an expert on all of Obama's points of view. I find homophobia to be as loathsome as racism and sexism and I don't understand why people find it so upsetting, why anyone cares what happens between consenting adults and what it has to do with anything. I don't think it's morally wrong or should preclude marriage or raising children or any other thing that the majority of straight white Americans take for granted. What has Obama himself done or said regarding homosexuals that makes you feel that you are not accepted?

[cali]

30. another petulant, nasty whine

and yeah, that's all it is. please put me on ignore.

[Sapphocrat]

36. Done.

You have proved my point.

[futureliveshere]

32. Methinks you are using too broad a brush to paint ALL Obama supporters

While it is true that Obama will be more receptive to ideas from the people, 'the people' includes you, me and many many others. The dichotomy in your mind is because you are assuming that the Obama supporters here represent the Obama supporters everywhere. Its a smorgashboard of America which supports Obama. All normal people. The ones on DU/Kos etc are the more aggressive, invested of them and hence naturally are much more likely to love/hate with a passion. But in the end ALL that matters is that we elect a Democrat to the WH and this common goal unites us all.

America is a presidential form of politics and though Obama will LISTEN to his supporters (unlike the present idiot), the final judgement call will be his. That is clear and anyone who tells you otherwise is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

[Sapphocrat]

41. No.

"The people" does not include me. He's said it countless times, in countless different ways: I'm not as worthy as he is. I'm not as equal as he is.

Show me where he says I am -- and point for point, I'll show you wher he says I'm not. In his world, his god gets in the way of my equality.

And, as I said to boppers, what reassures you scares the hell out of me, in this case: "the final judgment call will be his."

That scares the shit out of me. He's already shown me he does not believe I am as worthy as he is. And his "final judgment" is based on his religious beliefs.

I want his -- and everyone's -- religious bigotry out of OUR government. This is OUR COUNTRY, not anyone's church.

How is his position on my equality any different from what I've had to put up with for the past seven years? It's really not.

Look, I know we queers don't count for anything until crunch time -- and then all you want is our votes (and our money, which is just gravy). I know that. It's OK to admit it -- if just one Obama supporter would, then I'd have found an honest (wo)man. But don't try to fool me; I'm worth nothing to Obama, or to his campaign, or to his supporters, other than my vote.

Obama folks can call me low-class, uneducated, whatever -- but I'm not stupid.

You have no idea how HATED I feel -- and really, I could blow off Mr. DLC Obama if I believed for one moment that his legions of followers didn't hate me one-tenth as much as their leader just didn't plain give a shit about me.

I wish I could articulate to you how much this hurts -- to know that I (not just me, but the individual) mean NOTHING to the party now. NOTHING.

I just don't have the words. I guess I'm just too uneducated, too low-class, too nothing.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. Their policy stances on HR issues are exactly the same.

Neither believes in full rights. http://www.hrc.org/documents/Questionnaire_ReportCard-ClintonObama.pdf

[futureliveshere]

77. Sigh!! I understand your emotions, but they are completely misplaced

Religion should not be a deciding issue. Nor should guilt-by-association, as EVERY candidate will suffer by that. Especially candidates with long political careers like Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.

I can understand that you feel that the Obama campaign does not value you, but I can assure you that this is not true. Obama comes from a poor background. I also do not come from a privileged background. I know many people who support him who make up the entire demographic spectrum. This demographic B/S is an MSM driven and RW driven talking point which is only succeeding in dividing democrats. We MUST remain united as one family. Even Senators Clinton and McCain do NOT believe that Senator Obama's ideas have been in any way shaped by Rev. Wright. So why are you so worried about that?

Senator Clinton had the best chance in History to make history, and she fought hard and fought with no holds barred. However in every race there has to be a loser and a winner and she has lost. Thats an unfortunate reality for her supporters to face, but thats the truth. So Obama will be the Democratic nominee. I implore you to just examine McConfused closely and you will realize that for ALL your fears you will be safer (in a less divided world), better economically, better environmentally, and better respected in an Obama presidency than in a McCain one.

I apologize for dispensing free advise, but I feel your pain, and I am trying in my way to share it and to show you a way out. :hug:

[Sapphocrat]

107. I appreciate what you're trying to do, really.

But (you knew there'd be a "but")...

Religion should not be a deciding issue. Nor should guilt-by-association, as EVERY candidate will suffer by that. Especially candidates with long political careers like Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this -- that a candidate's religious beliefs should not sway voters one way or the other, or that religion should be left out of the public arena, entirely?

For the record (because someone will inevitably try to trip me up on this): Yes, a politician's religious beliefs -- if they inform a politician's political positions in any way whatsoever -- do sway my vote, and always will.

Remember that all persecution of LGBT people is based in religion. (There has never been a secular argument against LGBT equality, with the exception of the rare atheist infected by "ick factor.") That does not mean I am anti-religion; it means that I am anti-politics+religion.

It also means that I am immovable in my conviction that politics must be completely divorced from religion. (This, sadly, is another area in which Obama and I differ, 100%.)

I can understand that you feel that the Obama campaign does not value you, but I can assure you that this is not true. Obama comes from a poor background.

No. I don't believe that. It's a good story both Barack and Michelle have been touting all along, but it's just not true. Neither was born into royalty, but neither was born in a cold-water tenement flat where the cockroaches were bigger than the rats, either. The truth (for both of them) lies somewhere in the middle. Please read these two blog posts I wrote, and tell me just how "poor" Barack and Michelle really were, from childhood until the day they clocked nearly a quarter-million dollars in annual income (at the time Barack claimed to have been so "poor," his credit card was declined when he tried to rent a car):

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/03/06/michelle-obama-just-wont-shut-up-but-she-does-want-to-meet-me-right-after-she-rips-out-bill-clintons-eyes/

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/04/20/lets-play-match-game-broke-barry-was-sooooooooo-boke/

I know "poor." Obama was not "poor."

I also do not come from a privileged background. I know many people who support him who make up the entire demographic spectrum. This demographic B/S is an MSM driven and RW driven talking point which is only succeeding in dividing democrats. We MUST remain united as one family. Even Senators Clinton and McCain do NOT believe that Senator Obama's ideas have been in any way shaped by Rev. Wright. So why are you so worried about that?

How can you believe Obama's ideas have not been shaped by Rev. Wright? Obama didn't even know who he was before he met Wright. I know, that sounds like a terrible generalization, but I've read enough of "Dreams from My Father" to understand that Obama was drifting without a rudder until he found Wright. (Yes, I can elaborate on this, but honestly, I'm starting to burn out on posting for the evening. If you want to discuss the Wright's influence on Obama further, I'm willing -- but at the moment, the flesh is weak.)

Senator Clinton had the best chance in History to make history, and she fought hard and fought with no holds barred. However in every race there has to be a loser and a winner and she has lost. Thats an unfortunate reality for her supporters to face, but thats the truth.

Again, remember I'm only a Clinton supporter because everybody else I would have supported with my blood, sweat, and tears, dropped out. I am first and foremost a dyed-in-the-wool Kucinich supporter; when Dennis dropped out, I had planned to vote for Edwards in the California primary. When JE dropped out -- right as my pen was poised above my absentee ballot -- well, let's say I couldn't have been angrier with JE than I was at that moment. I'm still mad at him. I knew Dennis could never win, but I actually believed John could. Damn his premature withdrawal.

So Obama will be the Democratic nominee. I implore you to just examine McConfused closely and you will realize that for ALL your fears you will be safer (in a less divided world), better economically, better environmentally, and better respected in an Obama presidency than in a McCain one.

Oh, my dear, I have "examined" McBigot with all the precision of an alien anal probe, as well as the sick-and-twisted "ex-gay" brigades who support his self-loathing assholism.

I know these sick freaks, all too well -- and I know they cannot be given one, single inch. They must be stopped. Silenced? No -- I believe in the First Amendment. But stopped in their tracks by the constant application of truth against their filthy lies, yes. (Want to see how I spent Saturday, April 10th? My better half tells the full story here -- with pictures, no less.)

As for the rest... No, no, my world will never be safer, as long as there are bigots buoyed by their twisted belief that their god wants them to persecute us nasty homos (thus, the heart of the McClurkin issue) -- or worse.

If a "less divided world" means marrying the Democratic Party to the Republican Party once and for all, then yes, you're absolutely right. I, however, see the Obama "movement" as having fractured the Democratic Party irreparably. (I know; Obama supporters think Clinton killed the party. Well, I see just the opposite.)

"Better economically"? How? No, seriously, convince me. I'd like to know.

"Better environmentally"? I hate to break it to your guy, but there is no such thing as "clean coal technology." I don't know what planet he's living on, but it's sure not Planet Earth. What the hell is he thinking?

"Better respected in an Obama presidency than in a McCain one": I call it even. We gay folk aren't much on McCain's map (read: McCain isn't running on a *cough!* "family values" campaign; that's, like, so 2004) -- but neither are we much on Obama's (read: Obama realllllllllly hates being bothered by us pesky homos).

OK, I'm about out of steam. Back later to pick up on the posts I've missed this go-'round.

[rucky]

42. Because sometimes people are assholes?

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

45. You posted what many of us are feeling right now

He will get my vote, but is my last choice and only because he is a Democrat.

I have huge doubts as to whether he can win against the RW machine.

[nichomachus]

47. Mathematical and logical error

Obama has energized and inspired tens of millions of people across the US -- a minuscule fraction of them are on DU -- and of the minuscule fraction that are on DU, a handful of those have offended you.

It is simply a serious error of logic to transfer what you feel for that minuscule number you have encountered here to the tens of millions of people who don't post here.

The Internet and Internet discussion groups are a rarified atmosphere. Also, people say things from the anonymity of screen names that they would never say to your face.

Please, don't make assumptions about millions of people you've never met based on the actions of a extremely tiny subset of that number. That tiny subset is not representative.

[LWolf]

49. He has offended many, too.

Myself included. I'm sorry that so many have found him to be their messiah. I'm not inspired by speeches, but by positions on issues and record. Walking the talk.

Obama loses on both those counts.

[stevenleser]

52. Most are determined to be offended. He has done nothing to offend you.

But then, you already knew that.

[LWolf]

66. Bullshit.

See post # 64 for a large list of his offenses.

[Dhalgren]

68. You don't get to decide when or how someone else

gets offended. Obama said that his "faith" caused him to determine that same sex marriage was unacceptable. That offended me. I cannot vote for someone who is against the civil rights of American citizens. Clinton (who I do not support either) said that same sex marriage was not "politically possible" right now and that was why she didn't support it. A leader does things and supports things that are needed and just whether they are "politically possible" or not - but this did not offend me.

Obama is willing to listen to people who are and would continue to deny the civil rights of American citizens. That is wrong, period. And it is also offensive...

[stevenleser]

71. Actually, I do get to decide that. I can decide if when someone else says they are offended

that it is crap.

[Dhalgren]

75. No, you said,

"He has done nothing to offend you." That is an idiotic statement on your part, because you do not get to decide when or how someone else is offended. You can say that "it is crap" (which is also a stupid statement), but that is not the same. Can you not understand that? Is that too complicated for you?

[LWolf]

100. No, you don't.

My perspective belongs to me. I'M the one who gets to attest to it's reality.

[Sapphocrat]

108. Well, in that case...

...I hereby deem every claim of offense by way of "racism" absolute "crap."

Sound fair?

[nichomachus]

54. He offended you because he failed to inspire you?

Whatever.

And, as long as you keep referring to him in snarky terms like "messiah," you'll probably continue to be offended.

I'll bet Dennis is glad I don't judge him by the actions of supporters like you.

[stevenleser]

56. Right again...

What that person meant to say is, why hasn't Obama's candidacy died when we race-baited him with Wright and Farrakhan? I am offended that he is winning!

[LWolf]

67. No, that is not what I "meant" to say.

Who the fuck is "we?"

Suggesting that I "race baited" Obama is a personal smear.

Speaking about me to someone else, instead of directly to me, is chickenshit.

I said exactly what I meant.

[stevenleser]

72. LOL, your faux outrage doesnt impress me, sorry.

I stand by my translation of your "being offended"

[LWolf]

99. Stand all you want.

It's MY statement. I'm the one who knows what I mean.

I hope your feet don't get too tired between now and November. :D

[LWolf]

64. No.

He didn't offend me by not "inspiring" me. He doesn't have what it takes to inspire me.

He offended me with his hypocritical campaigning on "I was against the war from the beginning," while voting to support it at every opportunity until he started his primary campaign.

He offended me when he allowed homophobes to campaign for him.

He offended me when he admired Ronald Reagan, and the way he transformed the hard work of actual liberals. You know: those "excesses of the 60s and 70s."

He offended me when he spoke in support of merit pay, charter schools, and other possible efforts to further privatize public education.

He offended me when he expressed determination to continue the bogus "war on terror."

He offended me when he said he was willing to send our troops into Pakistan unilaterally.

He offended me when he left private health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies "at the table" to determine health care policies. His health insurance plan offends me.

He offended me when he distanced himself from his pastor of two decades in order to benefit his political aspirations.

I'm offended by his financial connections:

http://counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

I'm offended by the way he got to the Illinois state Senate, and his treatment of Alice Palmer, a better progressive than he is.

Whatever.

You aren't qualified to judge me.

[Dhalgren]

69. Well said, LWolf! Well said!

I am in 100% agreement with you! I am afraid that you and I and many, many other "long-time" DUers are not long for this board...

[LWolf]

98. You're probably right.

:(

[stevenleser]

73. All B.S. and trumped up faux outrage, yet again...

nice try... not.

[LWolf]

97. It's not "B.S." Those are the real, concrete reasons why

I am offended. Outraged is your word. Not mine.

It's not a try; it's a statement of fact. Deal with it, or not.

You can "hope" that people who feel the way I do "change" their perspective by November.

Good luck with that.

[stevenleser]

55. Absolutely true, and to take it even farther...

"Obama has energized and inspired tens of millions of people across the US -- a minuscule fraction of them are on DU -- and of the minuscule fraction that are on DU, a handful of those have offended you.

It is simply a serious error of logic to transfer what you feel for that minuscule number you have encountered here to the tens of millions of people who don't post here."

... as I said, to take it even farther, we have a forum here where both sides have tried to attack each other and each other's candidates as much as possible. To say "Oh, but your candidate's supporters offend me here" ignores that the purpose of this forum is vigorous and contentious debate.

Those of Hillary's supporters who claim to be offended and turned off are determined to be that way. If you find yourself described by what I just wrote, it is you and only you that can choose not to be.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

57. You are either

new to politics and how heated it gets or have a poor memory.

Why do you think there is oft given friendly advice "Don't discus religion or politics."?

Both topics are loaded, emotional hot buttons and divisive. My advice?

Get over it. Get behind the Democratic candidate (after you take a break.) And for key-rists sakes quit being so dramatic.

[Sapphocrat]

62. Best laugh of the day!

At the ripe old age of 12, I was phoning Houston Flournoy's office for campaign materials in an attempt to educate myself on the reasons the GOP thought he was a better candidate than... No, no, wait -- I'm not going to feed you this one. You go Google Flournoy -- then come back and tell me where you were in 1974. Were you even born yet?

Don't you try that stale "new to politics" attempt at undermining my political cred. I can name every Watergate player -- not from history books, but from the endless newspaper articles I was forced to read, report and debate on (and grateful I am for that -- thank you, Mr. Wimberley, no matter what a nasty bastard of a civics teacher you were) as it happened on a daily basis.

As for your "friendly advice": This is a political message board. Didn't anyone tell you that before you ducked in under the sign reading "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"?

As for your not-so-friendly advice, "Get over it": You may as well tell me to abandon my core values. Which, I expect, is exactly what you are suggesting.

I won't. Some of us will not be bullied or ridiculed ("dramatic"? why not just go the whole nine yards and say "hysterical"?) into submission or silence; our values trump political expediency. You get over that.

I'm not buying your line, "Little Buddy."

[bridgit]

58. Meet the new "blank screen", same as the old "blank screen"...

Oh...I recognize the heady drift of BHO supporters, hear the corks popping, the little 'phisttt' of micro brews across the land (the cheese platters I've smelt for months now thank you), and still read the piss & vinegar generated from within that "Who, me!?" frame of mind.

Debating Alan Keyes? Oh please. 18 months into his senate seat and he starts running for president; and BHO supporters still found the blinders to accuse others of political me-ism's. But Obama has yet to be tested on anything. That's what the world is for.

He'll be gripping & grinning, we all know that. For me it's peculiar watching him stand beside someone waiting for a picture. Face in wait, pre-smile, maybe a dart of the eyes then someone brings the camera up and Ding! There it is! There's that studied ear-to-ear smile, wee goody!! A "blank screen" with teeth.

But we don't need to be worried about the people that don't worry about us: America. The people that will test Obama just loooove to see us standing round pick'n & grin'n.

They love to catch us peering into a "blank screen".

[HousePainter]

60. All 25 of his supporters that feel a need to get in someones face

on DU or other blogs.
Are those the supporters that you're taking as representative of the millions that have voted for him
and donated time and money to his campaign ?

That's an argument that leads us to talking about
Mark Penn
Geraldine Ferraro
Bob Johnson
James Carville
i.e people in the inner circle of the Clinton campaign

not bloggers
but paid staff
major fundraisers
and advisers.

[crispini]

63. I don't have you on ignore.

Two points:

One. The internet is generally a nasty place; the anonymous factor turns otherwise nice and good people into assholes sometimes. Politics, double that. People are looking mostly for attention here, and nastyness and angst and all of that high drama gets a lot more attention than safe and calm posts. (I know, I'm totally invisible here and I am (mostly) nice.) So I don't see much point in judging people by the internet.

Two. I think the meme you refer to, that Obama will lead according to what the people want, refers to "the American people," not to just Obama supporters. When he, and the campaign, says that, they mean they are going to listen to the average American, not to the rich lobbyists and fatcats.

[Orangepeel]

65. Because Obama isn't a marionette.

Listening to the people doesn't meant that his presidency will be some sort of reality TV show where we all have 24 hours to call a 1-800 number to vote for what he should do.

His campaign is "of the people" because lobbyists won't be calling the shots.

[TragedyandHope]

74. Well, I'm confident Obama will do his best to make America a better place

I have a hard time seeing what you think Obama is going to take away from you. He is working for you, me and all of us. I expect you will be pleasantly surprised.

[Orsino]

76. I think you're overstating the hope thing.

Every candidate promises to listen to the people, and every goddamned one of them largely ignores that promise, to some extent, after winning election. Obama is perhaps different only in that his campaign has been unusually grassroots-based. Therefore, we supporters (and heck, probably a lot of other folks, too) have some small basis for presuming that he will listen to We The People a bit more than other candidates would. We presume that his leadership style is a bit less authoritarian than that of other candidates.

Your conflation of Obama's supporters with the general populace seems fallacious, too. When citizens speak to a President Obama, I doubt that he will first check credentials to see who was or was not a supporter of his in the primary or in the general.

Judge him now by how eagerly he seems to be listening to his supporters and to those whose support he'd like to win...but judge his presidency by how responsive he is to the needs of all Americans, and perhaps to those of the world. Please don't hold grudges against his current (ordinary citizen) supporters, because I promise you that he won't give us any preferential treatment when he's in office.

[redqueen]

79. nevermind

deleted

[Arugula Latte]

82. I don't get this comment:

"No, I take that back: I will feel less welcome in your America. In Bush's America, the Republicans hated me. In your America, the Republicans will still hate me, and so will half of all Democrats."

Because we prefer Obama for a host of reasons (among them his early stance against the illegal invasion of Iraq), we suddenly hate gays? WTF? Does not compute. I'm a straight Obama supporter, and my husband and I started a group that is an alternative to the Cub/Boy Scouts specifically because we do not want to support an organization that discriminates against gay people, and we did not want to teach our children to just "go along" with that mentality. There are many, many straight supporters of Obama who are very strong on gay rights.

[Solon]

93. A lot of Obama's supporters on DU are homophobic...

hence the impression that GLBT people aren't welcome on either this board or in the Democratic Party itself. Its a sad situation, but a lot of people are to blame for it, and have failed to rectify it so far.

[Jed Dilligan]

84. Funny

It was Clinton supporters here that turned me away from possibly supporting her. I wandered in after a long hiatus, supporting Kucinich, and I found myself talking to a tag team (or possibly a triumvirate) of Clinton supporters who gleefully twisted my words and posted pictures of crying babies when I complained about it.

Who knows what made them that way? But it was a huge turnoff in my very first hour of being interested in this campaign, and, though I really do like Obama's character, personality, and policies better, it really shaped my thinking. I was undecided for a couple of weeks after Kucinich quit (that was actually the same day I got interested) and I didn't see Obama people doing anything that really disgusted me. The Clinton crowd was there in every thread.

I guess it all may be a matter of subconscious prejudices or whatever that colors our view of the way people act. I've mostly been nice, I think, except when I saw something really egregious. But from someone else's perspective I am probably the shrillest Obamabot on this board.

Whatever, it is all irrelevant now, we have a presumptive nominee and it's time to end this forum altogether.

[Maven]

89. Sapph, as usual you're spot-on.

You've managed to articulate in one cohesive, eloquent statement the unease felt by many of us who did not support Obama, who were never convinced by his campaign rhetoric and who were alarmed by the vicious with-us-or-against-us mentality acted out by much of his fan base.

Yes, there is a huge logical inconsistency in the messages conveyed by his supporters, as you've pointed out. Moreover, I suppose the reason I never believed the Obama campaign was about "us" is that his campaign (to my eye) has been fueled largely by adoration of the candidate himself. Like you, I feel completely left out of the Obama "movement" not because I changed as a Democrat but because I felt intentionally discarded by the candidate and his supporters. I took some small comfort in a thread that was posted a few weeks ago, asking Obama supporters to specify three mistakes they thought he had made. Some of the answers were predictable ("he wasn't hard enough on Hillary") but some really surprised me with their self-awareness and many, many more than I expected listed the McClurkin fiasco as their #1 problem with the way his campaign has been run. So there is, ya know, some hope. ;)

I once said in the heat of an argument that I would not vote for Obama under any circumstances. I take it back. I will vote for him, albeit in a state where my vote is almost meaningless, but my vote will mostly be a vote against McCain. I will think of Obama as a placeholder with the words "not a Republican" on his forehead. Yet another election on the defensive--we're used to it by now, aren't we? After this election my involvement in politics will mainly be on a local level. I will remain a loyal Democrat, but my perception of the party (and of my fellow liberals) will be forever altered.

[Solon]

92. Personally, I think Obama is blowing smoke up everyone's asses when it comes to allowing the...

the people to lead him in the direction they want. I doubt he'll listen intently to anyone after the election, just another mediocre president, similar to Bill Clinton.

[Jamastiene]

95. Kicking because it's the unvarnished truth and needs to be read.

:kick:

[DemGa]

101. Oh my, this is so very true

I've thought of this myself, and discussed it with friends - we get it from all sides with Obama: the right-wing hates us and so do the Obamacans.

What a shame, we've lost so much with this charlatan Obama.

[TeamsterDem]

102. Poppycock

I don't subscribe to the "empty vessel" caricature of which you've painted Obama's supporters, but your argument is flawed. I've seen no argument from any Obama supporters that he's going to be a human empty vessel, but rather a political policy "vessel" ... essentially a populist who will, in theory, promote the will of the people over the corporate interests. Again, not my argument or my belief, but that's the nuts and bolts of the empty vessel deal.

Problem is though that the belief (of Obama as an empty vessel) limits itself to political policy. But what you're trying to argue is that Obama supporters (in your view) will project every part of their individual personas onto Obama, thus making him an amalgamated version of each of his supporters no matter the contributions they make; you're suggesting that if an Obama supporter is, for example, an alcoholic that they believe he will then become one. That's not their belief. Their belief is that the aggregate policy desires of the American people (not just his supporters) will be his agenda - and will be so on top of and despite the corporate power brokers who usually dominate our political system.

What you're attempting to do is justify your opposition to Barack Obama. Plain and simple (and transparent). Obama's supporters are necessarily not Obama, just as Hillary's supporters aren't her. If your logical inference were solid then Hillary would have precisely the same problem inasmuch as she's also talked of acting on behalf of the people and such; if the standard is applicable to one then it's applicable to both.

[Sapphocrat]

103. Then you agree...

...that the Obama supporters who do believe in the "empty vessel"/"blank screen" Obama are dead wrong in their assessment. Oh, yes, those supporters do exist; search DU for the phrase "from the bottom up" yourself, and you'll find many "personal conversion" stories in which the tellers really believe the "blank screen" business.

No, I don't need to justify my opposition to Obama. I've made my reasons abundantly clear, many, many times. You can disagree with my reasons all you like, but if you think I'm desperately seeking justification in order to mask some ulterior motive (racism, misandry, fear of change, right-wing trollism -- whatever label I'm being slapped with this week), you're wrong.

What I'm attempting to do is understand whether (some/many/all) Obama supporters think (as I do) that the "blank screen" rhetoric is just so much rhetoric and nothing more, or if people are just clinging to the belief that Obama really is different, transcendent, transformational. And I would like to know 1) if they know it's all just talk, why they repeat it as if it were reality, and 2) if they really believe Obama will be "an amalgamated version of each of his supporters"... well, why do they? -- especially as Obama Amalgamated contradicts the argument, "You can't judge a candidate by his supporters."

And thanks in advance for not trying to psychoanalyze me in the future.

[TeamsterDem]

106. Not at all

I definitely don't agree; I think you need to reread what I wrote regarding Obama voters' inclinations towards him owing to his absorption of populist political stances, not each and every possible stance of each and every single one of his supporters. And while I'm not personally inclined towards the "empty vessel" philosophy, those who are believe that the "emptiness" of the "vessel" isn't really empty, but instead that it's filled with the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Americans (not just those of his supporters) as opposed to corporate patronage.

What you're doing is putting words in people's mouths by exaggerating the degree to which they believe him to be this "empty vessel." What they believe is that he'll take the amalgam of populist thought - mainly that of working folks vs. corporate interests - and apply policy to balance the desires/needs of the former against the latter, and they believe (predict) he'll be better at doing that than Hillary. The latter is a value judgment, impossible to quantify, but that - in contrast to the way you've painted his supporters - is one they make (just as Hillary's supporters do), and they do so because they feel he's led by populist ideals which are much in line with their own views; it's not so much an "empty vessel" thought as it is a populist incarnation.

As to "psychoanalyzing" you: Not really sure why you felt compelled to be snarky there; I was being respectful and offering my thoughts based on what you've said. And what you've said are words of someone who's trying to paint those who view Obama as an empty vessel as a sizable constituency of his (doing so by way of creating this thread), and trying to put words in their mouths vis-a-vis supporters guiding Obama's policies. Unfortunately neither of those allegations are true, and as such they're misrepresentations of fact usually (but admittedly not always) uttered by those trying to justify something - whatever that might be.

I believe Obama to be different. Entirely different? Transcendental? No, probably not. But different nonetheless; and in my opinion different from both Clinton and McCain (not comparing the two as "one in the same" - they're absolutely NOT - just saying that they are the ones he's in competition with). I'm not going to get into justifying my reasons for supporting him because that's not relevant to the stated topic of this thread.