Stick your Concern up your

Who knows whether the Concerned Supporters of Barack Obama writing diary after diary about what he should be doing differently are Obama supporters?  It's not worth figuring out who is trying to monkeywrench and who is just getting caught up in their own worries.  

The first thing I saw on the rec list here today was a diary talking about how Karl Rove's advice to Barack Obama actually made a good bit of sense.  Because we all know that Obama is in so much trouble and Uncle Karl sounds like he's actually kind of concerned.  

Jesusflippinchrist.  

The comments were filled with people scratching their heads over why it made so much sense.  

Heck, I use the word Rovian.  I thought he was a mean guy?  

Take a breath and jump over.  

To all of the Concerned Supporters.  I don't share your Concern.  There are problems with our media.  We already knew that.  There is pervasive ignorance and cynicism in the world.  We already knew that.

What part of this weren't you ready for?  

This isn't a spectator sport my friend.  Get on the phones to Indiana and tell people why you think Obama will be a good president.  

Why do you think it helps to squeek your little echo into the media circus echo chamber?  

Obama has a problem because everyone says he has a problem.  You don't feel as boyant about the product now.  Too much bad press.  So, criticize the product and ask for something better?  It's our highest right/responsibility as consumers er, citizens, right?

Obama has won because people helped him win.  People like you.  He hasn't won because he's the new Pepsi.  That's how the opposition has tried to frame it.  That's not the reality.  It's what we're trying to beat.  

Writing Concern diaries might be your own little bromide.  But this aint a product selection.

If you really want Obama to win, don't spend your energy discouraging people.  Your energy is one of the assets of the campaign.  It's more valuable than some dollar amount in the campaign account.  100 dollars?  500 dollars?  Who knows?  Depends on how many votes you deliver.  

That's what this is.  Do you want a piece of it or not?  

•  Tips

  for getting a piece of it.

  by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM PDT

  •  I can tell you are very

    concerned about all these worry-wart concern diaries...

    wait a minute....

    ::head explodes::

    by nicejoest on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:11:27 PM PDT

•  I Am Concerned: Obama Is Winning

  Whatever shall we do?  Each day I wake up, and he is still winning.

  Surely it is time to re-tool Obama's campaign.  Democrats don't normally win - so something must be wrong!

  by bincbom on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:35:36 PM PDT

  •  Maybe if he could raise money?

    Maybe then the supers wouldn't overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses?  

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:38:35 PM PDT

  •  Democrats always win in their own primaries

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:40:08 PM PDT

    •  which, of course, is threatened this time...

      by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:54 PM PDT

•  In PA this is exactly what you're supposed to do

  after a primary, as ours are rarely contested.  No matter how well it went, it's all about what you can do better in November.  The real work hasn't begun yet, this is still just practice, so of course we need to talk about what went wrong.  We can do better, and we have to do better.  It's better to make a mistake now, identify and correct it, than make a mistake in general and have to live with President McCain.

  by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:38:59 PM PDT

  •  PA, please. you don't even have a voting

    system worth depending on.  there's a mistake to correct before november!

    by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:44:59 PM PDT

    •  Yet it's a blue state. A hard won Blue state.

      So you're conceding PA to McCain already?  I'm not.

      With that attitude why bother even trying to win PA in November?

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:04:29 PM PDT

      •  i conceding your hackable voting system to

        whoever wants to fuck with it bad enough.  hello.

        by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:26 PM PDT

        •  If y'all won't campaign in any state using

          electronic voting machines, just drop out now.

          I don't want to hear it.  Excuses, excuses.

          by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:15:48 PM PDT

          •  who's talking about not campaigning?

            sheesh.  what a piece of work.  

            "excuses"? lol.  your state has made it ILLEGAL to have a paper trail.  now that's disenfranchisement.  you're fucking nuts if you don't have the wherewithall to care about that, frankly, and i don't know your point in even showing up at a political site if you have that much disregard for election integrity.  it certainly doesn't say much for your integrity, either.

            you pretty much sound like a freeper... and i can't say, haven't missed y'all much.  oh well, nice reprieve since 2006, and you're back... and no worries, we're going to kick republican ass regardless of nonsense like this.

            by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37:38 PM PDT

            •  Yes I care, but my point is it's not an excuse to

              ignore everything else.  Did you not get the sarcasm in the previous post?  I wasn't advocating you don't campaign here, I'm saying that electronic voting machines are the least of our problems at the moment.

              You're the one who was acting like electronic voting machines are the only issue.  They're not.  Electronic voting machines or no, this campaign was a disaster and we have an ass load of work to do here if we're going to win in November.

              by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM PDT

              •  if you don't have election integrity,

                there is no point to everything else.  that is the very basis of a working democracy.  the trust in it from the electorate is the 2nd most important thing.

                no, i didn't get the sarcasm in your previous post... but i don't agree with your priorities either, i suppose.  i think if you read my comments you'll find i'm far from a 1-issue person... but we do agree on one thing, and that is that we have an ass load of work to do here if we're going to win in November!

                by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:39:51 PM PDT

                •  Our state legislature is Republican so doing

                  anything about electronic voting machines won't be easy.

                  That doesn't change much of anything about what needs to be done on the ground to win this election legitimately.

                  by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:51:26 PM PDT

  •  The mistake

    is buying into the echo chamber.  It only makes it louder and more dissonant.  

    Every 'big' problem Obama has right now is some planted Concern that gets repeated over and over until the concern is about how many times the Concern is getting repeated over and over.  

    If people saying, "room for imporovement" are talking about how they're organizing, volunteering, spending their energy, that does make sense.  But that's not what we're talking about here.  We're talking about, "I'm a huge supporter...but lately."  And then something about the candidate himself.  

    The story they've been trying to plant for months is that Obama is substanceless and his star will fade because it's just about pretty words.  That's a lie.  That's the opposition framing of him.  It was the Penn/Clinton strategy a full year ago as the campaigns were amping up in Iowa.  It didn't work in Iowa because of retail politics.  Now that we're in the national scene, it works if everybody in the country starts saying it at once.  

    They can subvert reality that way.  Like, Saddam had something to do with 9-11.  

    They are repeating planted Concerns over and over to see if they can make anyone genuinely concerned.  Eventually, it's the only story line in the media and one of the things they report on is all the concern this story about the Concern is causing.  

    What part of that do people want to be?  

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:58:39 PM PDT

    •  I've been going door to door or working at polls

      in Pittsburgh on every election day since I was old enough to vote, primaries and generals.  We're supposed to use the primary to figure out what needs to be done better in November, and usually it's relatively little things.  Figuring out what wards had lowest turnout, and putting more volunteers there, and the like.  This time we obviously have a much bigger problems to deal with, like the massive infighting among Obama's supporters; those from instate who typically run things here, and his campaign people mainly from out of state, trying to do things their way.  Their way didn't work, and they need to admit it.

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:17 PM PDT

•  There is always

  room for improvement.  Saying so doesn't make you any less of a supporter.  That said, I have been working, calling, and donating.

  by Snickers77 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:44:24 PM PDT

•  I'm really concerned

  He's only raised a quarter of a billion dollars so far - how can expect to compete with the republican money machine in the GE?

  by sgilman on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:47 PM PDT

  •  If we lose

    we may have enough money left over to just go buy a new country somewhere.  

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:59:32 PM PDT

•  i question the support of the concern mongers.

  in fact, the sole purpose of that crap is to attempt to propel the problems...

  listening to the trolls today, i should be worried that:

  wright shouldn't have opened their mouth - on no!
  obama didn't do well on fox - oh no!
  obama shouldn't have gone on fox - oh no!
  obama isn't visible enough - oh no!
  obama isn't strong enough - oh no!
  blacks are going to be pissed at obama due to fox comments - oh no!
  obama needs to get more negative - oh no!
  the democratic party is full of racist/sexist white men - oh no!
  we are not pandering enough to racist/sexist liberals - oh no!
  indiana is full of racist/sexist idiots, who all like HRC - oh no!

  have i missed anything?

  by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:49:34 PM PDT

  •  Probably,

    but that was still a soldierly effort to catalogue the fear.  

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:00:35 PM PDT

  •  I can think of a couple

    His stump speech hasn't changed enough - oh no!
    He looks tired and worn out - oh no!
    His Gallup numbers dipped and he's only leading by a little! - oh no!
    He didn't tell Wright to shut up - oh no!

    by louisev on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:15:00 PM PDT

    •  yup! that ole stale "stale message" crap...

      thanks for the additions.

      by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:16:20 PM PDT

  •  My kitten is giving me nose kisses. . . .

    Oh, wait . . . never mind.  

    by DrJeremy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:17:34 PM PDT

  •  You missed what really went wrong.

    That's a list of excuses.  The Obama campaign has no one to blame but themselves.  You can list everything that sucked, the Republicans, rain, racism, computer crash, etc.  Life sucks, politics suck, get over it.  If you can't change it, it's irrelevant.   At the end of the day all that matters is the mistakes you made, and what can be done better next time.  You can't change the rain.

    Luckily this was just a primary, but, oh boy, do we have an assload of work to do before November.

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:49:29 PM PDT

    •  whoa - i think you missed the point AGAIN.

      and i take issue with the creepy attitude - about people.  there are very few excusemakers around here - no one needs a lecture.   your POV about who we are is telling, but wrong.  and ultimately, you're not a good lecture candidate - after all, you don't even know what we're talking about.

      by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:54 PM PDT

      •  Are you kidding me?

        This website is crawling with finger pointers and excuse makers.

        The campaign has no one to blame but themselves because that's the only thing they have control over to improve.   Blaming anything other than themselves is useless because they can't change it.  It's not about fault, it's about November, and what needs to be done in November.  Keep your eye on the ball. The only question of importance is "what can we do better?" If you can't fix it, it's irrelevant.

        by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:04:18 AM PDT

•  I am very concerned!

  That it is 12:04 and I am still reading dailykos.

  by AHiddenSaint on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:27 PM PDT

  •  Be afraid

    be very afraid.

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25:24 PM PDT

•  Thank GOD for you Sundog!!

  You've said exactly what I've been thinking/feeling. Much of the concerns comes from Clinton supporters who, like their candidate, like to get that knife out and wiggle it around.  Others, well, its just beyond belief to me.  Seemingly the focus is winning at all costs, not believing in a set of principles, having a better vision for the US, just winning. I would rather lose with principles - perhaps thats naive.  I certainly don't wanna waste my energy doing the detractor's jobs for them as you say - repeating every negative frame ad nauseum. Thanks for your words - I wholeheartedly concur!!

  by From a distance on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:40 PM PDT

  •  I don't hate McCain that badly

    Fuck the assholes in power now.  Yes win at all costs.  Principals be damned, short of committing genocide, nothing we can do is worse than losing to these neocon motherfuckers.  It doesn't matter what it takes, losing is not an option.

    I'm not sure if that's how I feel running against McCain, but it's defiantly how I felt '04. There might be some principles I won't sacrifice to beat him.

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:12:54 PM PDT

•  And a great product...

  can't ever be made better?

  I don't think anyone is asking that Obama re-make himself.

  It's not just Rove that handed out advise (no matter what alterior motives he has) but Howard Fineman also added his advise in the form of 7 Tips...

  I happen to agree with Fineman.  Doesn't mean I think Obama will fail if he doesn't, just that there is always room for improvement.

  Even Obama himself said that they "fine-tune" their message/campaign.

  by Terre on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:40 PM PDT

  •  The point I was making

    was that he ISN'T a product.  We don't get better government the way we get a better ipod.  

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:51 PM PDT

    •  Oh please

      You know perfectly well what I meant.

      Substitute the word product for candidate if you must.

      Obama is NOT perfect.  And I do not say that as a Hillary supporter.

      by Terre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM PDT

  •  Obama's taking advice from Rove would be a fatal

    mistake.  Rove's ulterior motives are obvious - to get McCain into the white house.

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:16:30 PM PDT

    •  And what do you say to Fineman's tips?

      Did you read those?

      by Terre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:14:34 AM PDT

      •  Are you referring to this?

        What Obama must do in the debate?  It's a load of shit.

        His problem here wasn't Hillary.  It's just a question of how many people get to the polls in Pittsburgh & Philadelphia vs. in central PA where they support her. That's why paying people to do the ground work in Philadelphia is so important, quite simply that's what it takes to win elections here.  The same dynamic will exist in the general — this will only be a blue state if voter turn out in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is high enough to balance out the conservative voters in central PA.

        by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM PDT

•  LOL

  Well he really shouldn't have gone on "faux", I already voted for Edwards so my only concern is you supported the wrong candidate. Other than that I'm fine, thanks for asking ;~)

  by LaEscapee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:32 PM PDT

  •  Not sure how

    I supported the wrong candidate.

    One of the ways I got Edwards leaners in Iowa to stand with us on caucus night was talking about the fact that Edwards could win the caucus but it almost certainly wouldn't mean he actually builds the national campaign that could beat Hillary.  Obama was the one chance of doing that.  

    I stand by what I said then.  The idea that Edwards was ever really an option when this campaign was on my porch seems ridiculous now.  

    Her campaign would have done what it was designed to do.  Combine more than two hundred loyal superdelegates with the one two punch of loyalist California and New York voting on the same day to end the race on SuperTuesday.  That's what would have happened if my state went Edwards.  

    I started with Obama because I didn't want that to happen.  Because we're spoiled in Iowa, I got to see him alongside the other candidates, including John Edwards and knew very well that I had backed the right candidate.  

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37:18 PM PDT

    •  This is an old argument

      But since your diary is essentially dead anyway i'll respond.

      First I have to fundamentally disagree with your premise. From your own statement you chose Obama not because he was the best candidate but because you thought he could outspend Clinton, and could gain the support of the establishment.

      The fact he spent 3, 4 or whatever more than JRE including courting and paying people to flood the Universities just to win the state while not winning the base shows he wasn't the best candidate. There is and was a reason he was talked into running and a reason he was and is funded by wall street, they wanted an anti Hillary and knew that if JRE was that anti Hillary he would win. There is no doubt that if he would not have entered the race the antis would have coalesced behind JRE. The question is who and why did they talk him into running after he already said he wasn't going to? Who bankrolled his initial effort and why?

      Something to consider and it's understood he will be the nominee. It's the question that is being asked, why can't he close the deal? The answer is simple when people back away and look at how he has won the states he has won. He does not win the base, the longtime base support of the Democratic party has not supported him. He has pandered to republics and indies throughout the campaign and just taken for granted he would gain the base. All the old lefties aren't gravitating why? Because he is a centrist, the opposite side of the coin from Hillary. The party now is actually split because they are so close to being the same as to be indistiguishable.

      That is the difference you would have had with an Edwards candidacy, a clear distinction for the people to choose between.

      Like I said an argument that doesn't matter now just know that I will vote for our nominee, even though neither were our best chance a real change happening anytime soon, unfortunately.

      by LaEscapee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:58:20 PM PDT

•  don't you know, it's the long slow agonizing

   
  downward slide to victory.  That must mean it's time to panic!

  by louisev on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM PDT

•  Isn't that weird that Karl Rove

  keeps writing columns advising Senator Obama? This is the second one, i think.

  by Mutual Assured Destruction on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM PDT

•  Rove = propaganda

  Anything that comes out of Rove's mealy little mouth is designed to spread fear, doubt and create a sense that Obama is a weak vessel. Rove is all about spreading misinformation so anything he says should be discounted. All you have to do is read Rove's "advice" with an eye toward the "art of propaganda" and it is as transparent as plastic wrap. Just look at the terms he uses about Obama 's current "troubles". He pretends to be "helpful" by "praising" Obama's gifts while undermining him with slams on his character, achievements and record. My God - it's so obvious. Rove is only a "genius" in that he plays the same old game that bullshits impressionable people.

  Of course Obama needs to  keep on his toes - he knows it, his campaign knows it and his supporters know it.  He didn't get where he is now by being naive and clueless.

  by Eyz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:35:02 PM PDT

  •  It is obvious

    And it is worth pointing out that even here, Rove is capable of effecting people.  

    I've had to explain to my brother and a bunch of other people who Karl Rove is and why he's significant. (urp)  But it's disheartening that even people who use the term Rovian prove that they have no idea what that means.  

    Maybe people are thinking more about Limbaugh or something?  Just blowhard wingnut stuff.  

    Rove didn't get to be Rove by saying what he means.

    by Sun dog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:06 PM PDT

  •  Let me guess, Rove was the one who said funding

    grass roots work in Philadelphia was passing out bribes.  Sick on so many levels.  Then if Obama does what every other candidate has done he get accused of doing favors for the Black community, and if he doesn't then he gives Philadelphia the finger, and loses PA. Holy Shit, I should have guessed.  Rove's an evil genius.  That makes so much sense, it has to have been Rove's work.

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:13:37 PM PDT