What the hell makes you think Obama should be President?

So many people on this site claim to be Obama supporters, but I really have to wonder.

I mean, the President of the United States is often referred to as the leader of the free world, yet, by your behavior, you do not seem to place much respect in Senator Obama's leadership abilities.

The Senator speaks of a new politics, of changing the tone of our politics, before it poisons us all. Yet I see so many of my fellow Obama supporters engaging in rude, insulting behavior, and I have to question.

If you truly believe in the Senator, why do you not attempt to follow his lead?

::more on the flipside::

I myself have gone round and round with any number of Hillary supporters in various comment threads on this site, and I vigorously oppose her nomination. What I don't do - well, make every effort not to do anyway - is to allow my passionate feelings to translate into being insulting personally to someone. Granted, I have lost my cool on a few occasions, but I am constantly working to improve, as should we all. My goal is to keep my arguments entirely focused on the merits, not on the person I'm arguing with.

Now, don't misunderstand. I am not telling anyone to dial down the volume, or to soften their criticisms. I'm merely saying it's possible to change the tone without losing the strength of your argument. As a matter of fact, your argument is stronger when done in a way that doesn't insult people.

And I'm certainly not trying to be holier-than-thou. Like I said, I've been guilty of getting too down and dirty, myself.

But I believe Barack Obama should be the President of the United States. I, like Ted Kennedy, believe he is ready to lead on 'day 1'. So that means, unless I am to be a hypocrite, I, and all of us that support him, should look to his leadership now.

Has he ran any personal attack ads on Hillary? No.
(and agree or disagree with its premise, the health care flier is merit-based)

Has he made any personal attacks on those who support Hillary? No.

And neither should we.

I support Barack based on his work in the streets of Chicago, in his leadership in the State legislature and Senate in forming coalitions to accomplish progressive goals, and in his willingness to stand for what is right. And, most of all, in his judgement. I believe he is right about our politics, and I believe if we fail to change it, we are heading for a slow societal rot from the inside, much like Rome before us.

I oppose Hillary based on a whole host of reasons, but all of them are related to her record, in the Senate and before, her positions in this campaign, and, to a certain degree, her campaign's conduct over the past several months. But I don't oppose her because of any personal animosity.

And most importantly, I know her supporters, especially fellow Kossacks, are not my enemy.

I may disagree with them, vehemently, but ultimately, the vast majority of them are good people, just like us, who simply see things differently. That is their right, and I respect it. I will happily debate with them, perhaps using some colorful language from time to time.

But it is our right to be the change that Barack speaks of, and change our politics - starting right here.

{NOTE: none of this applies to trolls and astroturfer's - for either side. Fuck y'all in the eardrum.}

•  Tips/Flames

  Sorry if this diary is a bit stream-of-consciousness, but nobody is helping Obama by insulting people. You will convince no one, and only serve to strengthen the unfair stereotype of Obama supporters as some sort of torch-bearing mob.

  And, yes, there are many HRC supporters who are as insulting as anybody, but don't be like them. And don't make the mistake of mischaracterizing every HRC supporter based on a few bad actors. It's just as wrong for us to do it as it is for them.

  There is plenty of meat in the substance to sate any debate. Let's work to keep it there, because I believe when the debate is substance based, we win every time.

  by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM PDT

•  Some of us are angrier than he is

  Angrier at, specifically, the government establishment, Democratic as well as Republican, that has essentially engaged in a narcissistic tapdance for the past, oh, thirty years, instead of doing ANYTHING real about the problems that seriously challenge us as a nation. Some of that vitriol is inevitably directed towards the Clintons and their campaign. It's politics, people get riled up.

  by slash196 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM PDT

•  Why?

  Because he's a Democrat and Terry McAuliffe isn't one of his principle advisers.

  by kaleidescope on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM PDT

  •  hit the nail on the head

    and Terry McAuliffe isn't one of his principle advisers.

    I would have been so much more open to HRC were it not for her choices as top advisors - which also fed into the way her campaign has been run - which also has fed my opposition - which made me look more critically at her record - which made me oppose her more - rinse - repeat...

    by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:54:12 AM PDT

•  Obama wrote a book about his new style

  of politics two years back, and it's possible he has been working on the idea for a few years more.

  The rest of us haven't as much practice. We're still partisan to the bone and it'll take a while to clean the gunk out :p I'm trying to improve, but sometimes people manage to pull the worst out of me. For instance, calling Obama supporters a cult....I go for the jugular, almost by instinct!

  by Mardish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:50:15 AM PDT

  •  Actually, I read an article the other day

    which suggests to me that Obama has been working on his political strategy for over a decade... this is a great read, for both Clinton and Obama supporters alike: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    by Mardish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:53:29 AM PDT

  •  no doubt

    The rest of us haven't as much practice. We're still partisan to the bone and it'll take a while to clean the gunk out :p I'm trying to improve, but sometimes people manage to pull the worst out of me. For instance, calling Obama supporters a cult....I go for the jugular, almost by instinct!

    That's one of the main things I'm trying to get at here. There's several comments in my history that I feel were over the line, even if I felt (and still feel) that what I was responding to was even more so, and there's been even more times where I've ended up hitting the cancel button before I put my first reaction out into the intertubes.

    It's a journey, not a destination.

    by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:56:16 AM PDT

    •  This article, ugh.

      By the way, this article earlier this morning completely blew a fuse. I had to take a few moments to remind myself that this is quite clearly a minority viewpoint of the Obama camp. It's still linked on the front page of Drudge Report, however.... ugh I hate Drudge so much.

      Check out the comments it has generated. This country has a long way to go. My computer has a hard time loading the page, it is so overwhelmed with responses. To some, the comments probably confirm their ignorant viewpoint that Obama supporters are cultish. Rage tends to suspend rationality, and that is likely reflected in more than a few responses (though I'll be honest, I only read a handful...there are a lot)

      by Mardish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:14:04 AM PDT

•  how about

  not judging a candidate based on their anonymous, internet supporters?

  that's gotta be one of the dumbest things i read every day..."i like so-and-so, but his supporters turn me off."

  by missreporter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:57:10 AM PDT

  •  really good point

    I've made this same argument myself. If you base your vote on what some anonymous asshat (and I mean that in the best way possible) posts on an internet forum, even one as beloved as Big Orange, that's fine, but I think that's a pretty shallow way to determine your vote.

    See the front page article up right now by Devilstower for more on this.

    by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:00:36 AM PDT

  •  Ideally, yes

    But realistically, it's going to happen. It's particularly going to happen when someone, like Obama, is building a movement. You look at the other people in the movement and ask, Do I want to be in the same movement as them? Do I want to be associated with them? And, I've gotta tell you, there are Obama supporters on this site who I would now cross over the street to avoid. Doesn't mean I won't vote for him. Doesn't mean I won't support him. But I'm going to do it against my gut instincts, and not everyone will.

    by PatrickUK on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM PDT

•  I think it just gets down to how you are dressed

  I will say things in my bunny slippers at my keyboard, I would never say in my running shoes on the street face to face.

  Here it is more intimate and more solitary at the same time.

  There still isn't a way to behave that is standard.

  by 88kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:58:29 AM PDT

•  Hope is personal

  Inspiration is personal.
  Charisma and Appeal are personal.

  I oppose Hillary based on a whole host of reasons, but all of them are related to her record, in the Senate and before, her positions in this campaign, and, to a certain degree, her campaign's conduct over the past several months. But I don't oppose her because of any personal animosity.

  The idea that all political discussion is purely a logical debate on issues misses a HUGE part of Obama's power. How many big decisions in life are made rationally, and how many are emotional? Most of us who think we are thinking rationally, are in fact using rational thoughts to justify a decision made deep in our lizard brain.

  I like Obama for a lot of reasons. One of them is he is damn persuasive at a gut level to a lot of people, and I think this will make him a very effective leader. I think Hillary is severely deficient in this ability to inspire and persuade others. That has nothing to do with her record. Is that a personal attack? I hope not. But it certainly falls outside of the Spock-like criteria you seem to be advocating are the only fair and proper way to evaluate a candidate.

  Just something to think about...

  by swalker007 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:05:02 AM PDT

  •  Issues are part of the equation for me.

    Ability to take those issues and opinions we agree on (or can work with each other on) and turn them into action and accomplishment and really better our lives is the other big part.

    So yes, charisma, debating skills and talent at public speaking do count.  As do politicking skills, the ability to horse-trade on the legislative floor without giving away the store, and come up with solutions that solve our problems while still being palatable enough with those we disagree with, such that enough votes can be pulled together to Make Things Happen.

    Obama's got the gifts.  He's more in agreement with me on the issues than Clinton is, and IMHO, he's got more of the charismatic and social talents that are needed to move past making speeches saying change needs to happen, and persuading enough people at the levers of power to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

    And don't sweat all the amateur net.pundits.  It's an anarchic free-for-all on the web, and some people will behave badly, on all sides.  We'll manage.

    by meldroc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM PDT

  •  interesting point

    I think I may have come across a bit wrong. I'm not saying that we should judge the candidates or make our arguments based on 'gut-level' things. I agree with your comparison of Obama's and Hillary's ability to inspire.

    I'm just saying we can make that argument without being insulting about it (and the vast majority of Obama supporters do).

    by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:11:07 AM PDT

    •  whoops

      that should read 'I'm not saying we shouldn't judge the candidates or make our arguments based on 'gut-level' things.'

      by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM PDT

•  First of all...

  The healthcare mailer was merit based?  That is completely and wholly idiotic.  How can ANY DEM justify using Republican/Insurance company attack ads to run againts another DEM?

  And politics of change?  Please...Obama has taken more money from Wall St. companies than Clinton and the now defunked Romney.  Don't believe me?  Read and see:

  http://www.opensecrets.org/...

  Goldman Sachs:
  Hillary: $407,561
  Obama: $421,763

  Lehman Bros:
  Hillary: $237,270
  Obama: $250,630

  And for UBS, National Instruments, and JP Morgan, the Obama campaign is not reporting the amounts, but lists them as donors.

  Change?  Not much.

  by theplaintruth on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:09:29 AM PDT

  •  counting to ten... 1... 2... 3...

    The healthcare mailer was merit based?  That is completely and wholly idiotic.  

    So I guess anyone that opposes mandates is automatically a Republican, huh?

    And I don't think a complete funding comparison would be too favorable to Senator Clinton.

    by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM PDT

  •  Anyone who works at the company

    who contributes more than $200 total is counted in the total.

    This means that if a low level employee who works at Goldman Sachs gives Obama $200 over the course of a year, then he/she will be counted under Goldman Sachs.  These people who contribute to Obama are not asking for anything in return, except a gov't that they can be proud of.

    Same with the oil companies, drug companies etc.  A chemist who works for Eli Lilly contribute to the total for Eli Lilly, etc.

    by IhateBush on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM PDT

•  There's a difference in political style between

  Clinton and Obama in terms of how they deal with political adversaries.  Here's Clinton:

  vast right-wing conspiracy

  and on right-wing attacks against her:

  I've been through it and I understand their tactics, and I have been subjected to them for 15 years and I have survived them

  While she's correct on all points, I think she was foolish to mention it.

  And this is what Obama said when he voted against the "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" as a US Senator:

  Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.

    This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them.  This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

  So he voted against a parental notification bill, maintained his 100% pro-choice record, while still indicating sympathy with the intent of the bill...and keyed in on the right-wing's suspicion of government.  In other words he didn't alienate anyone, and he did it in a politically very astute manner.  We Kossacks can all take a lesson from that.

  by skrekk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM PDT