Courage to Dissent: Attacking Obama vs. Criticizing a Choice

[Mithreal]

Fellow Progressives, please have the courage to dissent.

I could wait until after inauguration to question the PE's rhetoric and choices but I have higher expectations of him.

There needs to be balance between giving him the support he needs but also pushing him to be Progressive. DU'ers who cannot find this balance and take every criticism of PE Obama personally are a peculiar bunch. Don't think for a minute that the rightwingers and massive corporations are not pushing him away from us. I am not naive enough to believe he will be able to keep all his promises but I do not want to hear him backpedal now.

A criticism of PE Obama is not a personal attack on the man. Politics is hardball, right. What I have seen more frequently is angry DU'ers personally attacking fellow DU'ers that question Obama's choices. For those that cannot stand to read the criticisms of Obama, newsflash, those criticisms do not tear him down. DON'T YOU THINK HE IS STRONGER THAN THAT? Don't you think his support is stronger than that?

I do not believe PE Obama is a Progressive on all issues. I really hope I am proven wrong. For that to happen he needs to have the chance to govern.

If you plan to remain silent about every choice Obama makes, trusting his intelligence and decision-making to be better than yours, then IMO you are doing a disservice to the DU community and are abandoning your freedom to dissent.

THIS ELECTION WAS supposed to be ABOUT US.

It is time Progressives had the COURAGE to stand up. If you do not have that courage, then support those who do question. At the very least do not try and stifle their voices. Sometimes those who doubt will be right, sometimes wrong, but I for one am here for a lively debate.

Recently I questioned my Congressman's voting record and was told by two of his 'senior' DC staffers that we could pass laws that weakened protections for citizens because, "all would be well soon and we could TRUST President Obama not to abuse the new powers" - loosely quoted. At the time WE did not even know Obama would win. I should not have to TRUST a President. That is why there is a Constitution and three supposedly coequal branches of government, right.

I have hope for America's future, but if one has faith in government, Gore Vidal calls that someone a fool. I am worried, call me a worry troll, that a small but VERY VOCAL number of Obama supporters here are still acting like members of something like a personality cult. PE Obama does not need you to attack fellow Progressives for questioning his choices. PE Obama is a man, not an infallible KING. He will make some bad decisions and you cannot always defend those or rationalize them. I am a strong supporter and I worked harder than many here to get him elected, but my eyes have been and will continue to be wide open. I say many but I cannot truly know. I am, however, unemployed and gave 40 to 60 hours per week and not just in the last few weeks leading up to the election. I fought for this win, it is mine too. I have the right to criticize, I put in the sweat and I am a responsible citizen. I realize folks who I offend will ignore me, flame me or like in the past send lame email to my DU inbox, but this needs to stop. We are a nation of laws, not of men, even one so gifted as PE Obama. This is our country. Please have the courage to dissent.

Also, please stop whining about the LEFT attacking PE Obama. IT MAKES US LOOK WEAK. And being on a Progressive discussion board this kind of talk makes us sound ridiculous.

[emilyg]

1. I don't view politicians through rose-colored glasses.

k/r

[Skittles]

2. the worshipers are fucking annoying

[FrenchieCat]

4. The people who call others worshipers are fucking annoying also.

Because attacking other people who don't think just like you, just because you can, is rather low brow.

[meowomon]

35. I am a supporter of Obama and his administration...

but you got to admit there are some people who are very irrational in their support of a candidate. We find that more in the Republican party due to their strict control of the party message. That is not the Democratic way and I think President Elect Obama would agree. That is exactly why he is reaching out to the Republicans. He must remember that he needs to reach out to the left as well.

[roguevalley]

41. you get gang tackled if you dissent. you get your entire being called

into question. Sigh. very sad.

[emilyg]

43. It is sad and most undemocratic.

[roguevalley]

45. I agree, emilyg. but then I have to remember. A lot of people on

this board have lived in a country where disagreement was treason and freedom of speech -as I remember it back in the day- was as broad as the Mississippi.

[FrenchieCat]

3. THIS ELECTION WAS supposed to be ABOUT US.....you say.....

that would mean all of us, and not everyone sees things as you do.

But yeah....of course you should go ahead and criticize away at Obama if that is what you want to do, as well as those you see as being part of a personality cult, etc....

But as well the same holds true for those who choose to criticize you for criticizing Obama or for telling them that they act like they are part of a cult.

What I read a lot about is those who want to criticize
but don't want to be criticized.

It would seem that part of the solution would be for those who want to criticize Obama's moves to do so, and the same folks should be prepared to be criticized for doing so.

The discussion about criticism itself has taken a life of its own here, and it is getting pretty silly....as everyone should be able to say whatever they want to say understanding that they may get criticized for it.

So what's your beef? What is it that you are criticizing Obama about that made you feel compeled to do this whole OP about why you can criticize but others should refrain in criticizing the criticizers.

[dkf]

5. But shouldn't criticism be based on the merits of the argument

rather than a "shut up and stay in line" sort of mentality?

I don't think there are many here who criticize Obama for the heck of it. They are based on real concerns, that Obama would be the first to say should be expressed. Obama loves hearing different sides of the story. He is not a dictator at all. Communication is key.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I think that those who want to criticize should....no matter the merits

of the argument....because criticism is relative to the person making it....and merits are subjective.

I think those who want to say "shut up and stay in line" have the same rights as those who feel compeled to criticize Barack Obama.

Some people believe that criticism of Obama are warranted, and so they should go at it.
Some people believe that criticism of Obama are premature, and so they should go at it.

Who are we to determine that one poster is in their full right, and another poster isn't?

[dkf]

9. I hate censorship and don't like when people say "shut up".

I guess it is a person's right to do that, but its not our tradition, especially as Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Actually, I don't read a lot of "shut up" here.......

although I do read criticism and counter-criticism, and then a lot of debate about who can criticize and who can't. It's all getting rather boring....because it seems so circular.

I'm reading more debates about the right to criticize in general, than about any specific criticism in particular.

[Mithreal]

16. When one cannot separate personal attacks from criticism

of policies, choices, rhetoric, there is going to be more discussion about what constitutes proper criticism.

[FrenchieCat]

19. But look at Skittle's comment. He agrees with you, I reckon,

but in so doing is making a blanket personal attack statement calling folks Worshipers.
That may be general, but it is still an attack....cause Worshiping is not considered a positive.

[Mithreal]

24. You really cannot argue that Obama is very much loved

There is a risk to our democracy in idolizing him, especially now when the Progressive community needs to be on guard. Change is coming and we want it to be for the people, right.

Yes, I would agree calling people worshipers is provocative. I saw it used during the campaign and found it annoying and can imagine it may still be personally annoying to some. What's funny is I talked with my brother-in-law over Thanksgiving and he accused me of idolizing Obama. Pretty ironic, I know, but he is an unrepentant rabid righty.

I want all our eyes wide open. PE Obama is being pushed by the right. We cannot sit back imagining we have won. We have won nothing but the right for Obama to govern.

[FrenchieCat]

26. You see......

These are your opinions, and although others may share them, they are not undebatable facts.

There will be some who will idolize Obama no matter what, just like there will be others who can't stand anything about him or anything that he does. The progressive community needs to be on guard, why? I believe that if anything, we can take a small breath in knowing that Obama is about to get sworn in. So see, we disagree on that already.

Also, I don't believe that Obama is being pushed by anybody.....although you do. I believe, just as you stated in your OP that Obama is strong, not weak.

You may not believe that we have won anything, but I believe that we have....something we again disagree about. I believe that we won the election, and I believe that change has already begun. Not everything will change, because that is an impossible feat....but I believe that much will change. That's what I believe in earnest after reading both of Obama's books, meeting him and listening to his many speeches. He never said that change was coming in the form of his cabinet, and so I am not disturbed by whom he chooses to fill it. But again, that's just me.

Perhaps it is only that you and I differ in our views by degrees; I most likely trust Obama's more than you do. Doesn't mean I don't disagree with him on some things, it just means that I don't expect all to go the way that I believe it should. It doesn't make either one of us bad people, it just means that we see things differently...which is understandable, far as I'm concerned.

[Mithreal]

32. PE Obama himself said we have won nothing but the right to govern

Right, opinions that can change based upon discussion of facts and well reasoned arguments. We cannot have reasoned debate with personal attacks crippling discussion.

The folks that idolize Obama might be a problem, but anyone who hates him or anything he does is just as silly. Idolize, I think, is different than personalizing criticism of his appointments, for example.

The victory of the election is one thing, but that is fleeting, right. There is so much work to be done. There is no breather and we are losing some time that we could put to organizing and action. I was at my Congressman's office last week pushing investment in green jobs and energy independence. There is no grassroots mobilization in my area at the moment, but there is some talk.

I think we are a lot closer than you think. I often find myself agreeing with what you write even here. It's kinda funny seeing assumptions you make from my statements. We agree on so much. The only problem I have ever had with some posts is that they come across so raw and heated. We are all allies here, except for a few trolls.

[glowing]

6. I think the real issue is complacency and trust.

The entire constitution was centered around NOT trusting those in elected positions who have the invested power to make the laws. The last 8yrs have seen a time period where dissent was completely ignored by anyone. No one had the audacity in power to stand up and say "NO" to King George. Obama brought the election to the people again and said this is about you, not me. So, some would like some acknowledgement that he's listening. I'm willing to give a bit of space. He's not even sworn in yet. I'm assuming from the way he is still talking, that he is going to be spending massive amts of money of moving the economy forward, getting people healthcare, and enacting green policies that will move us forward. If he feels using the people he's selecting will give him the best results, then I'm assuming he'd like to try them out. If they aren't working, I'm sure he'll act swiftly to replace them to make sure the goals that are being set are accomplished.

But I think the biggest issue is complacency. Clinton, not progressive really, was a great president compared to Asshat.. but in those years of the 90's there was an onslaught from the right. The left and the rest of the country that was doing relatively ok, didn't pay as much attention to those who were rigging the system and stirring up the loonies on the right. They played the moral authority and then the fear card. As a result, there is still an institution of the right and the media, etc. who distort and smear Obama. I think the big fear is that their public soap boxes along with the special interest money will guide his thinking over those who desperately need a break.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I agree with you.

However, I don't think that public soap boxes or special interest money will guide Obama's thinking.

But of course, that's just what I think....based on the fact that he didn't take special interest money during the election.....and that he appears to have the biggest public soap box of them all.

I think that what we will see as time goes by, and Obama is sworn in, is a President that will engage us in the process and make us his special interest....but of course, he won't be able to please all of the people all of the time about everything. As long as one keeps that in mind, then real progress will be made and change (in policies) will occur and we will move forward, not backwards.

[glowing]

12. You know, I don't always agree with my husband.. but I still enjoy him and

sleep next to him 6 nights out of the week (I work one graveyard shift). I won't always agree with Obama, and that's ok.

The one thing, and I'm guilty of doing this, is complaining.. I like to think of sollutioning. If you complain without a different way of doing something, then you are just nagging. If you offer a different sollution to a problem, then someone is more willing to look at the idea without feeling so offended.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I agree with that.....

Offering up solutions are key to any instructive criticism....as it is too easy to criticize others without offering up concrete solutions that are reasonable and doable.

But that's just us.

[Mithreal]

18. "Didn't take special interest money" - Really?

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Time Warner, Morgan Stanley

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Maybe those do not count as special interests?

[FrenchieCat]

23. Those are people employed by those companies who donated to the Obama campaign.

I gave my donations, and when I did, I was specifically asked to list who I was employed by. I happened to be self employed....but I used to work for Bank of America. Had I worked for BofA at the time that I made the donations, then my donations would be listed under Bank of America....and could be part of your list. Would I then be guilty of being a special interest more interesting to Obama than if I listed myself as self employed? :shrug:

[Mithreal]

28. I have heard that claim and acknowledge it as true to a point

Are you really telling me you think that PE Obama did not feel obligated to Goldman Sachs for these contributions?

Ok, neither of us can know. You and I probably agree to believe the same thing, but it doesn't really matter.

I do know how it looks though.

[FrenchieCat]

31. True to a point? Why only to a point?

You don't believe that the information as to where one works is used to categorize donations by specific businesses, by industries, etc...?

Of course that is how the data is grouped.

You may not know, but I do because I read OpenSecrets methodology of gathering and sorting contribution data. And "how it looks" as no bearing on the matter if one is properly informed....and I would assume that you would be since you threw out the link and the implication that came with it.

Standardizing the Data
OpenSecrets

To make computers do what they do best, inconsistencies in real-world data need to be smoothed out. That's the situation you're facing when dealing with thousands of campaign contribution records that have been filled in by hand by dozens of campaign treasurers and aides. Names of contributors, and the companies they work for, will have almost endless variations. What you need to do once you've got the raw data in your computer is to standardize the names.

STANDARDIZING EMPLOYERS AND OCCUPATIONS

Contributor names aren't the only fields in need of standardization. You'll also need to clean up the names of contributors' employers and occupations. When you start assigning category codes to each contribution, youÕll use the contributors' occupations/employers to determine their financial interests. You'll also use the occupation/employer information to generate lists of the leading contributors - but to get accurate totals, you'll first have to standardize the employer names.
snip
As with individuals, the best way to do this is to sort the employer field alphabetically. If the records you're working with have information on the contributors' occupation and employers, you'll want to preserve that original data in the occupation and employer fields. To do that, and to store the new standardized company names, you use a new field - newemploy. What goes in the newemploy field? If you know the contributor's employer and his or her occupation, enter the employer's name - duly standardized - in newemploy. If you have only the occupation or the employer, put whichever one you have in the newemploy field. And if you have no information at all about the contributor's occupation or employer, leave newemploy empty. Here's how it works:
http://www.opensecrets.org/action/ftm/ch10p1.php

[Mithreal]

33. Of course I agree with that, I do not questions the employer data

I chose OpenSecrets because I did a Google search after listening to Gore Vidal today on my local Progressive radio station and he commented on PE Obama's donations from Goldman Sachs. I could go get a podcast but unless I misremember he mentioned a much more significant amount. Maybe his numbers were based upon donations to Democratic state parties that Obama was able to mobilize and command during the campaign.

I question that you or I can know the motivations of those independent people that worked for those corporations whether those "easily bundled" donations could come with expectations by the businesses themselves. I am getting really sleepy, did that make sense?

[Mithreal]

14. The ironic thing FrenchieCat is you are the one

who convinced me to throw my support to Obama. You, yes you.

You can search and you will find I thanked you personally. Prior to that I had to ignore some of the angry tone in some of your posts and even challenged your posts several times, but when you didn't sound angry you convinced me.

Ironic, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

17. Well, It just shows that you have an open mind.......

and I like to think that I do as well.

I'm just saying that those who choose to Criticize Obama for whatever they see fit, should go at it.
Those who choose to believe that it is too soon for criticism, should speak up as well.
That way, the debate is being had.

BTW, I'm not too enamored in some of Obama's choices, and like others fine.
But I'm into policy changes, not personnel changes so much.
But of course, that's just me....which is why if others have specific criticism, that is ok with me.
However, if I totally disagree, I will attempt to debate the issue without putting the poster down with a personal insult.....unless of course, they attack me personally for my opinion.

[Mithreal]

15. You clearly did not read my post with an open mind

I tried to point out that there is a difference between criticizing the man and criticizing his choices. I may have failed to be clear.

IT IS NOT ABOUT CRITICIZING PEOPLE, discussion on DU is supposed to be about criticizing arguments and ideas. Why can we not have reasoned discussion without personal or even ad hominem attacks sometimes?

[FrenchieCat]

21. I think we should have discussion without attacks......

But when you make pronouncements such as

"If you plan to remain silent about every choice Obama makes, trusting his intelligence and decision-making to be better than yours, then IMO you are doing a disservice to the DU community and are abandoning your freedom to dissent."

then you are criticizing people, IMO.

Perhaps some people will remain silent about every choice that Obama makes (although he hasn't yet made many choices at all), simply because they agree with his choices. To announce that they are doing a disservice to the DU community is quite harsh considering that you are asking that your own opinions be respected.

[Mithreal]

25. I make no claim that my opinions are always correct or true

That is why I come to DU for discussion.

If anyone who does not personally know PE Obama trusts him, then I stand by that statement. We do not know him. He will soon be our President. The citizens have the OBLIGATION to future generations to stand up for the Constitution, not the President. You cannot blindly trust any politician. I cannot stand Reagan but he said TRUST BUT VERIFY, right. I do not know PE Obama, but I was moved by his words. There is zero guarantee that he will not stray under enormous pressure from his vision for America. So, if I criticize people for blindly trusting then yes I am criticizing that behavior not the person.

There is a difference between a personal attack and a general statement on group behavior. I am again failing to make my point. I have seen too many personal attacks on DU lately. You know them when you see them. If it is a general "shoe fits" statement then some folks may personalize it but there really is a difference. I could give examples of what I mean but you can see examples for yourself in various comments even in this discussion.

[FrenchieCat]

29. See, I think that there are middle grounds that you are leaving out.

I don't believe that one has to personally know Obama to trust him, if that is what they have chosen to do. You speak in absolute as though because you said it, it makes it so. You may not know Barack Obama, but that doesn't mean you speak for everyone else. What citizens have the obligation to do is up to each citizen. "Blind trust" should not be thrown in casually as it is not at issue here, because it is an extreme pronouncement. There are those who trust Barack Obama without it being "Blind" trust (that has a very negative connotation to it).

General statements go both ways as does describing group behavior. I found Skittle's statement to be quite objectionable even if he was speaking in general terms, and not about one particular poster.

That is why in the end, we should all feel free to say what we want....but we must be prepared to respond to those who have differing opinions without believing that they do not have the same right to speak as we do....regardless of what they think. That is how debate is had.

But yeah, the personal attacks are never required.

[Mithreal]

34. Yes, and when did I say someone did not have the right to speak?

The citizens of the United States do have obligations. One example is to vote. Yes, each person can choose to ignore his or her responsibility but it does not change the fact of the obligation. Do you disagree with that? If we cannot agree on that, what point is there in discussing any further obligations of American citizens.

[Radical Activist]

8. Criticism of Obama would be taken more seriously if so much of it weren't irrational.

There's a difference between criticizing his cabinet picks, and speculating that it means Obama isn't liberal, that he moved right, that he's abandoning progressives, that nothing good will happen for four years, that he'll be just like Bill Clinton, that Nader was right all along etc. That's all conjecture. The criticism of cabinet picks would be much more effective if they were reasoned instead of being filled with hysterical exaggerations like most of the critical posts on DU. It makes the left look irrational and hopelessly cynical. I expect more from the left.

[Mithreal]

20. I like your response. Yes, I want us to stand strong, even

when it means we argue or dissent. Hysteria is foolish, cynicism is crippling. Reason is what I want.

[CreekDog]

22. some really are personally attacking Obama

don't make the distinction and then say that all the attacks on him fall only into the "criticism" category.

[Mithreal]

30. I acknowledge some people attack him personally BUT

BUT they are usually not folks in our community.

"all the attacks"? - I think you are misreading my point.

You must be able to distinguish personal attacks from other criticisms.

[meowomon]

27. I think criticism is very important.

I trust his judgment and am willing to cut him and the Democratic congress a lot of slack on things like the economy, Iraq and security. But the rule of law must be upheld and if there is not a serious investigation into the lead-up to the war in Iraq,the torture of detainees and Gitmo, I will lose all faith in these "changes" they were talking about. These are very serious crimes against humanity, not just incompetence and greed.

[Mithreal]

36. Real change to me means addressing these crimes and greed. nt

[99th_Monkey]

37. K&R - Like I said elsewhere, Progressives now need be all about "making him do it"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7939966&mesg_id=7939966

[quickesst]

38. All the "intelligent" discourse....

...concerning Obama's cabinet choices is just window dressing for the real issue, and it's sad that democrats, especially here at DU, will not acknowledge it. The bottom line is, if Obama doesn't bring HRC into his cabinet, the majority of these type threads would never be written. Excuses would flow freely from the far left progressives as to why every decision Obama makes is "brilliant". Ho-hum. Thanks.
quickesst

[midnight]

39. If we have learned anything about the last eight years, it is that

we should speak up.

[zbdent]

40. trust me ... DU included, there will be plenty of "lefties" (legit and not)

who will criticize/attack Obama ...

[Mithreal]

48. Personal attacks are wrong. If someone does it, call them out.

Actually call out their weak argument and state that it is a personal attack. Calling out DU'ers personally is against the rules and I am fine with that although sometimes it can be difficult to not cross the line.

[Greyhound]

42. Trying to bring discourse into this topic? You are a silly person.

:kick: & R

[Mithreal]

49. I know, thank you : ) nt

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[gravity]

46. Can you wait until he gets into office first?

You have the right to criticize, but sometimes it gets ridiculous.

[Mithreal]

47. My op distinguished between attacking the person

and criticizing choices, as well as having balance between support and being true to Progressive values.

No, we should not wait until he is inaugurated to question his choices. WAS HE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER INAUGURATION TO MAKE THESE IMPORTANT CHOICES that he is making now. If you want to wait, then fine. I DO AGREE we need to give him the chance to govern before making judgments. Judgments about who he is are different than questioning his recent rhetoric or staff choices.

When I mentioned I have the right, it is because I was heavily invested in this election and to preemptively ward off those who might think I was not one of his supporters. Everyone has the right to "criticize" and my issue was with personal attacks on fellow DU'ers. Several readers could not understand this, either I failed to be clear or what I wrote was not read as a whole.

So, is there something I said that was ridiculous?