I think I figured out why there is rage against Obama

[Cary]

Barack Obama didn't cause the problems we have right now. He didn't engage us in two wars. He didn't have anything to do with Gramm Leach Bliley (3 Republican "conservatives") or the Financial Futures Act of 2000, where 70 years of successful regulation were stripped away and led to the crash of financial institutions. He didn't bail out Wall Street, although that was actually a good idea I think. He didn't create a smug relationship between regulators and oil companies. He had nothing to do with the problems we have with health care--he has just tried to work on fixing those problems.

But that's it. It's clear that he cares. It's clear that he wants to work on fixing all of these problems whereas "conservatives" want all of the problems because they think that the problems they created and the mess they made proves that government doesn't work. And they don't want government to work. They want us to fail.

Directing the rage at "conservatives" is appropriate but not real satisfying because they like being the object of scorn and rage because it gives them an excuse to lie and concoct all kinds of bullshit and to try to project, spin, and redirect the rage onto "Liberals" whom they just hate because that's really all "conservatives" are about.

Now, directing rage at Obama and at liberals who want to fix problems is much, much more satisfying because we care and their rage, as misguided as it is, actually affects us.

That's why we get rage here at DU and that's why Obama is a better target for rage than "conservatives".

Crazy. Isn't it?

[Political Tiger]

1. I think some people aren't happy unless they are angry.

Many of these people, IMO, need to find fault with everything Obama does because that way they don't have to examine their own sad, pathetic lives and deal with whatever it is that turned them into the bitter beings that they are. As George Harrison sang in his song See Yourself: "It's easier to criticize somebody else than to see yourself."

They seek out negativity, they need negativity. I think a good example of that is this current brouhaha over this Politico blogger's claim that some unnamed White House "official" called him and said the unions wasted $10 million on Blanche Lincoln.

No way to verify this claim. No sources to back up this claim. The person who supposedly said this is anonymous. Yet, despite this, people are in a frenzy. Over what? One person's opinion....and that's assuming there's any truth to it at all to begin with! They feed off these crap because it fulfills their inner-need to be angry.

They hear a rumor and despite the fact that it is totally unsubstantiated, they run with it, and automatically blame Obama, because that's what they do: BLAME OBAMA!

It is crazy.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Tiger]

12. There was no "leak"

Somebody expressed their personal opinion. And since this person still remains anonymous, for all we know it was a member of the White House cleaning staff. Still, this didn't stop the rampant rumormongering and speculation that has been going on for the last two days. And here's what Gibbs said:

"I don’t think that the President would necessarily agree with that characterization made by somebody here. I think we would certainly agree that we are likely to have very close elections in very many places throughout the country in November. And while the President might not have agreed with the exact characterization, I think that whether or not that money might have been better spent in the fall on closer elections between somebody -- between people who cared about an agenda that benefited working families and those that didn’t, that money might come in more handy then."

Either way, it's hardly something to throw a fit over as people have been. They're more upset over the opinion of some person (who apparently has no name) than the BP oil spill and acting as if Obama hates labor, completely ignoring what Obama has done for labor, such as naming Wilma Liebman, Mark Pearce and Craig Becker to the to the National Labor Relations Board, signing an executive order requiring federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change, signing an executive order preventing federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers deciding whether to form a union and engage in collective bargaining, reversing a Bush order requiring federal contractors to post notice that workers can limit financial support of unions serving as their exclusive bargaining representatives....not mention all the pro-labor, pro-union actions Obama took when in the Senate.

But hey, let's don't let those minor details get in the way of people getting angry......

[Cary]

3. But I think we give them reinforcement that they would not get from rightists

I get upset that people, whom I have considered to be my people, bite me in the ass. I'm sure this shows, so their abuse gets reinforced.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

16. Yes, they enjoy their rage

As the OP says, it is more fun for them to direct it at someone who cares. The right wing just laughs them off.

But they have the option of being positive and supportive and funny, they don't take that one.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

6. The reallity is that the President raised expectations during the campaign

Actual governance is a more problematic enterprise.


The President could help the situation by swinging for the fences every once in a while.


I understand and support his strategies and tactics to get things done in the real world but he needs to take some big steps to show that it isn't all about incremental changes.


The oil spill is a golden opportunity for him to make an Apollo type committment to end the use of gas for commuter transportation within 15 or 20 years.

[Cary]

7. Maybe but that doesn't explain why our fellow progressive abuse us

I mean I agree with these people on 90% or more of what they stand for and mostly the differences are about how we get there, not where we want to go.

So why the hate and anger? What the hell did you and I do grantcart? And why the snideness and the glee over being snide?

[grantcart]

17. There are some people who are experiencing a lot of personal pain

Have you noticed that there are a lot of thoughtful people who we disagree with who have also stopped posting?

I assume that they also don't like the current atmosphere even though they may agree more with the opinions being expressed than we do.

And then there is a type of aggressive narcissism of the Bill Mahr type. Its all about me.

[quiet.american]

10. Sometimes I have to wonder - what will it take?

"Swing for the fences once in a while" !

This president, in under two years, saved the economy from total collapse, and therefore, perhaps prevented the implosion of the entire country a la the Soviet Union; saved the auto industry - to the point where a "pronounced-dead-on-arrival" industry is now thriving and hiring, and forecasting profitable quarters, and repaying their government loans; aided small businesses more than any president in recent history with tax break after tax break; passed healthcare reform that has already impacted people's lives for the better -- a feat no president in history could accomplish -- and Obama accomplished it in spite of there not being anyone in his circle of advisors who thought it could possibly be accomplished, and in spite of rabid Republicans peddling monstrous lies about it; revamped the Veterans Administration; put in the funding and infrastructure to finally bring high-speed rail to this country; and a thousand other accomplishments large and small -- and people are STILL looking for that "swing for the fences." I just don't know what to say.

[Political Tiger]

13. All candidates raise expectations during campaigns

And once elected, they all fall short. It's part of American politics and has been since the beginning of our country.

And there's only so much a president can do, as the framers of the Constitution mandated.

This president has had to deal with an extremely hostile Congress, on both sides. You've got the Republicans who put up roadblocks every single chance they get, and they are helped by some Democrats in this obstructionist resolve. Obama can make all the "Apollo type commitment" he wants to, but when those on the other side (aided by some on the same side) are determined to sabotage everything he tries to do, his hands are tied.

[Kaleva]

22. That's something most candidates do.

Voters are attracted to candidates the exude confidence and who put forth the message that better days lay ahead.

[Cha]

8. I consider the source and know that

people I know who are supporting this Admin are those who are looking at the big picture and not whining about every little thing.

Stay in place of always complaining and you don't learn what's really going on.

[Peacetrain]

9. Makes as much sense to me as anything I can think of..

Its nutsy fagen for sure

[Bobbie Jo]

11. Perhaps so, but this is what I'm seeing...

IMO....Much of the "rage" against Obama at DU can be attributed to not having supported him (or even liked him, for that matter) in the first place. You'll notice that his most vocal opponents have NEVER offered him the benefit of the doubt on ANYTHING, whatsoever.


For instance...think about someone you absolutely cannot stand. Imagine that you have an opportunity to critique this person (anonymously, without their knowledge, and without any consequence) on every single facet of their job performance. As much as you would like to think you could maintain your objectivity, it simply isn't going to happen. Benefit of the doubt is something most people aren't willing to extend to someone they don't like.

I'm the type of person who takes particular notice of patterns. The "rage" you're seeing isn't really all that complicated. There are those who just can't stand him. period. If you want proof...read what is being posted elsewhere. There is a pattern at work here. The usual suspects...lather, rinse, repeat.

Criticism is necessary, healthy and productive. This is something entirely different. If it weren't for the same people who do this repeatedly, I might have a different opinion.

[Political Tiger]

14. I think you make a good point.

Most of these people have hated him long before he even got the nomination, and are determined to hold onto that hate at all costs.

And I guess it's important to remember that while this small but very vocal minority of hatemongers have taken over DU and turned it into an anti-Obama site, in the real world most Democrats and liberals are happy with the President.

[goclark]

19. I agree, the real world seems to be very pleased

with the President.

I am always so shocked to see anyone complain about anything after GW.

President Obama is vibrant, intelligent, on the job 25 hours a day, represents our country with style and with grace, is loved all over the world and MOST Democrats adore him.

Not since JFK have I lived to see a President, and a first lady, that are simply adored by so many, that's my view.

I am about thisclose to saying bye bye to sites that are vicious and angry and evil and put down our President in such a hateful way.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Yes, there is that ...

I didn't actually realize it at first until I started going back and researching certain posting histories. There's quite a lot of rehashed primary wars going on and people stretching to be able to say "I told you so."

There's another contingent -- and I am making absolutely no claims as to their origins and actual motivations because I don't know them -- who just joined DU during the period just before his official nomination to slightly after the inauguration. After a tense run-in with quite a number of people bashing me for being an idiot/apologist/DLC I started looking at some of the names I didn't know. They acted like they'd been here forever, and to my surprise, some of them had been here a few months at most. Almost all of them were either veterans of the primary wars or had joined in this particular time period.

That's not the whole of it, of course, but the vast majority of the most irrational antipathy I see directed toward Obama comes from one of these two groups.

[HughMoran]

18. That's the majority IMO

Most were Edwards or Kucinich supporters, with 6 - 7 notable exceptions who went with Obama in the primary (a few supported otehr candidates obviously.) So the majority of the hardcore Obama critics have a decidedly different political philosophy and feel no compulsion at all to support the "Democrat" who won, they support their philosophy, come hell or high water. A good number have now disassociated themselves from the Democratic party altogether, I'm not sure where they go from here as election season approaches. :shrug:

[Cha]

21. Oh yeah!...that's more

than evident.

[Cary]

23. I would not argue with any of this

It makes a lot of sense and yes, this is something entirely different than healthy, productive criticism

The fact that it isn't healthy and productive criticism is integral to my theory which actually fits well with yours, I think. These people really aren't hurting Obama as much as they are lashing out at us and hurting us. They really are hurting us. Look at how many of us are saying that we don't want to post in GD or GDP, or even at DU at all any more. That is the real effect of their "rage" or whatever it is that they're acting out.

And of course when a Graywarrior leaves, who mourns that? We do, of course.

[janx]

20. I appreciate this thread and all who have posted in it.

I'm not around DU as much as I used to be, and as I mentioned in an earlier thread, I had to take a break for awhile. The site doesn't resemble the one I knew for many years.

I could not figure out what happened to DU or why there were so many people venting so much anger here. I still don't understand it. When things get ugly, I try to remember that each poster is an individual--this is not (regardless of cyber structure) a load of "groups." Each person is responsible for what s/he posts online, anywhere. People have vastly different circumstances, and as the saying goes, nobody on the internet knows you're a dog... :rofl:

But I wish that everyone would remember that each poster here--or anywhere--is an individual human being. There are individual reasons that individuals write what they do, and the groups they identify with probably have much less to do with their ideologies and more to do with the fact that, for whatever reason, they are unhappy.

Many people are out of work or underemployed. Other people, who are used to day trading, have lost a lot of money. Union members feel threatened by media reports that may or may not be true. Still other people have too much time on their hands and think it's fun to engage in discourse that is less than civil...because they CAN! That last example if perhaps the most pathetic.

As I have gotten to know--as best as I'll ever know via DU--individual posters, I've found that my respect for them has changed drastically, and this has very little to do with whatever "side" they are on. Frenchie can back me up on this one--we exchanged barbs years ago, and now I find that she is a very passionate and dedicated Dem. She is outspoken at times, ;-) but I so admire her tenacity and especially her history.

If anyone can shed some more light--regarding additional reasons this is happening--on the situation, please PM me. Again, I am becoming convinced that individuals who are unhappy are banding together based on some ideology that serves to temporarily ease that unhappiness but that really doesn't address it directly.

[Cha]

24. We appreciate you, too, janx..

I remember the Dean Days when we and more than a few others were for him and we had quite the 2004 primary battle but after it was over(and it may have taken a little while) we supported Kerry(& Edwards..who knew?). Some of Kerry's and Clark's most fierce supporters are still around getting out the facts on the Obama admin and I appreciate them and the former Hillary supporters who are now behind the President.

Big Picture Reality kind of people who actually remember how far down the bush-cheney coup took us and who really are into progress.

Your last paragraph rings true..haven't met anyone like that in real life though.

[janx]

33. I haven't either Cha.

It only happens in this online, impersonal atmosphere.

[treestar]

25. Yes, rage at the Republicans is probably useless

They don't care at all.

[Cary]

26. "Conservatives" are amazingly reckless and careless about their rhetoric

I can't believe that they're doing this on purpose but then I can't believe they're really as stupid as they make themselves out to be.

It's the old are they crazy or are they stupid conundrum. Of course they're both.

[Cha]

27. And, the gNOp couldn't do it

without the corporatemediawhores backing them up every step of the way.

[Cary]

29. No doubt n/t

[Fire1]

28. That may be true but for the life of me I don't understand how

POTUS campaigned on EFCA and in the same breath backs Blanche Lincoln! I think these are the kinds of contradictions that make liberals crazy and it's very difficult to defend.

[Cary]

30. The "conservatives" have made the Republican party into their party.

Democrats have liberals, moderates, and some real conservatives.

That's why Republicans can ram their nonsense down our throats when they have power and it's why we Democrats have to go through the painful, ugly sausage making routine.

[DFLforever]

31. EFCE has nothing to do with his support for Lincoln.

It hasn't yet come up for a vote. But HCR and the Recovery Act have and Lincoln supported both of them, which is why the President supported her.

Why would a Democratic incumbent, from a conservative Southern state, support the President's legislative initiatives, especially one as unpopular as HCR , if he is unwilling to support them against a primary challenger?

[HughMoran]

34. You are right ...

[nevergiveup]

32. Lincoln is an incumbent Democrat .

Presidents rarely support any primary challenger of an incumbent member of congress. There may be a couple of examples where a modern day president did this but I haven't found them. As pathetic as Lincoln is she still provided a much need vote for Obama's stimulus package. If I lived in Arkansas I would have worked and voted for Halter but I still understand why the president did not endorse him. These kind of endorsements from a sitting president just do not happen.

[HughMoran]

35. ...AND you are right...

It was a combination of pragmatism and tradition support of incumbents that drove Obama to support Blanche. I still hate her guts.

[Cary]

37. Me too, but I am all for pragmatism

There's too much at stake to do anything else.

[HughMoran]

38. I am not disagreeing with his decision

I wanted to make that clear. I still don't like Blanche - she's one of the 'bad 5' Senators that made life miserable in a supposed 'supermajority'.

[Cary]

39. I am not disagreeing with you.

So there. :)

[HughMoran]

40. Expanding on comments can be somewhat confusing

...so I thought I'd clarify anyway :D

[Cha]

36. It's understood by those who

are looking at the whole picture but willfully left out by those who want to fatten their so called leftist donation sites.

Easy to get the troops riled up..who pays attention to details?