Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's Presser Video & Transcript Plus Response to McCain (289 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's your implication that I'm trying (0+ / 0-)

    to lead some sort of counter-movement to Obama's that I reacted to, as if one had to choose between accepting everything that Obama says, or being disloyal. You didn't have to spell it out for the implication to be quite obvious. Unlike Repubs, Dems are allowed to disagree with their party's leaders on anything they wish to disagree with them on, without being described as breaking with millions of followers, whatever that means. If you disagree with my suggestions, then do so, with reasons, but don't take the lazy way out and characterize it as breaking with millions of Obama followers.

    Seriously, this cultishness is boring and unhelpful. It's not either/or.

    To the GOP, change means doing a 360.

    by kovie on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 04:35:37 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You posted about leading instead of following. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kitty, Vicky, geejay

      An objective measure of leadership is how many people you can get to follow you. My comment was meant to imply that Obama is leading, based on the fact that millions of people are willing to vote for him. He has put himself out there, way out there on a limb, and millions of people find him to be a credible leader. That's it. But I can see how you could misinterpret.

      As for your suggestions, I think there is a political case to be made for doing what you say. I also think there are drawbacks; namely, if people are as sick and tired of partisan B.S. as I am, and as Obama seems to believe they are, obstructing Paulson's bill just to put forward an identical bill may just seem like the same old partisan B.S., not exactly what those millions (myself included) signed up for.

      •  He's not "way out on a limb" (0+ / 0-)

        First, I have no idea where you get this from, other than that you've been buying into the RWNM's framing on today's politics, which posits the far right as the center, the center as the left, and the left as the far left. I.e. they've moved the goalposts, such that anyone who supports the kinds of policies that Obama and most Dems support, like abortion rights, maintaining social security, universal health insurance, is "far left" and "way out of the mainstream", which is sheer and utter BS and in fact way out of touch with objective reality. So in what way is Obama "way out on a limb"?

        Second, I'm talking about active vs. passive leadership. The fact that millions of Americans are "following" him doesn't make him a true leader. Anyone can attract "followers" without being a real leader--e.g. Bush. And I'm not comfortable with the word "follower", as it implies cultish passivity. I see myself, and I think most Obama supporters, as just that, supporters, not followers. But he can't just talk the talk. He's got to walk the walk, and propose his own policies, and not just tweak existing ones. THAT is a textbook definition of a real leader. If there was ever a recent situation that called for true leadership, not merely saying the right things, it's this one.

        Finally, you're yet again buying into and advancing the RWNM's framing when you use the terms "partisan B.S." and "obstructing", implying that anyone who refuses to cave into the GOP's demands is part of the problem, not the solution. THAT is BS. Politics is all about partisanship, and anyone who doesn't get that, gets nothing about it. Sure, compromises are necessary, but principled ones that come out of partisanship, not unprincipled ones that come out of capitulation. You make it sound like accepting the Paulson plan is the right thing to do, and that opposing it is "partisan B.S." and "obstructing". Are you for real? This is what you call leadership, and good politics? This is a recipe for weakness, capitulation and ineffectiveness.

        Seriously, you're way off the mark here in buying into this whole "post-partisan" BS, which is a fairy tale that has no relation to reality. We will ALWAYS have partisanship, there will NEVER be Kumbaya with the other side, and the only good deals are the ones that result from partisanship, not its abandonment. When the other side is ready to abandon partisanship, then we keep talk. Until then, partisanship is the only way to go. And Obama knows this, whatever he says publically. You do realize that his "post-partisan" schtick is just a ruse to win over the low-information center, I hope.

        And absolutely playing politics with this plan is the right way to go. In a perfect world, everybody would put aside partisanship and work out a deal that's best for the country. We don't live in that world. We live in the world where there are sides, and each side is out for itself. The other side, though, represents power and money elites for the most part. Our side, for the most part, represents everyone else--i.e. most Americans, whether or not they're Dems. And doing right by them calls for playing politics. You may not like it, but it's simply how things work.

        You need to stop listening to the RWNM and realize what's actually going on here.

        To the GOP, change means doing a 360.

        by kovie on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's out there putting his life on the line. (0+ / 0-)

          That is what I meant: his life, his family, his career, his reputation--on the line. To be a leader (of the free world, no less), this is what one has to do. It is a big risk and a huge sacrifice for anyone, but especially for Obama. Nothing passive about it.

          I don't listen to the "RWNM". If they want to call me far left, whatever. If you want to call me a centrist, I'm fine with that, too. I don't change my values based on what they (or you) say. Opposing a bill (or amended bill) just because it originated from the other side is partisan B.S. And if Obama decides to oppose this bill for this reason (and he just might), then it's still partisan B.S., and I bet he'd agree with me.

          At this point, I think it's pretty clear that, even though we're on the same side, we are talking past each other. So, since I have to go, I propose we agree to disagree. Good night!

          •  And having put his life on the line (0+ / 0-)

            (which I respect him for), he is morally obliged to forget about that and do whatever he believes is right for its own sake, and not because it's safe, either politically or physically. THAT is what leadership is all about. I think this is self-evident.

            And while in theory, you are right about how opposing something from the other side for the sake of opposing it is partisan BS, when it comes to BushCo, it's never partisan BS, because they are all about partisan BS, and always have been. If this happened to be the one good proposal that they've ever had, then fine, I say support it. But it's yet another one of their partisan BS hack jobs that are intended to help their side and hurt everyone else--including Dems. So hell yeah Dems should be opposing it, cutting it off at the knees and substituting their own bill. We're dealing with BushCo here, which by definition means that EVERYTHING is going to be partisan, and has to be dealt with as such. There simply is no room for genuine bipartisanship with these people. I would have thought that after nearly 8 years, you would have gotten that by now.

            They are EVIL and dishonest and have to be opposed at every turn. What part of that don't you understand. To deny that isn't "centrist". It's delusional.

            To the GOP, change means doing a 360.

            by kovie on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:55:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site