Obama's starting to get on my nerves

Gala wrote:

I guess the best thing I can do is not listen to him anymore.

Great idea.

There is going to be a lot of news on this guy from now until election day. You are not required to keep up with the guy's every move until that day. Take a break.

There will be plenty of libs contorting to vote for him like ebrown.

ebrown_p wrote:

Let's cut him some slack so he can win the election.

Nonsense. When he shifts positions and principles to the right to win elections he should be called on it. This notion that it should be forgiven to win the election is foolish. This is the same "triangulation and poll-driven politics" that he claims we need to change and he should be called on his hypocrisy.

When liberals ignore his pandering, or make excuses for it they play into cult-of-personality politics instead of sticking up for what they believe in. Making convoluted excuses about how the pandering is pragmatism and how after he gets elected he's going to be this marvelous agent of change is absurd.

Take his votes at their face value. When he panders to the right don't try to read secret liberal points into it. Read it for what it is: he's courting the right.

If you are right/moderate you should be happy, but if you are a leftist and reading a secret leftist agenda into it all you are ignoring a more obvious motivation: simple ambition on the part of the candidate.

Brand X wrote:

There will be plenty of libs contorting to vote for him like ebrown.

And... will you be voting for McCain?

Maybe, just relax a little bit?

Who expects a candidate to agree with all of their positions, or to be happy about everything they do? Not I.

He's the front-runner and he does represent a different way of doing things then before; but he's not perfect and won't please everyone all the time. Every time there's a problem it's going to be trumpeted as proof that he isn't different; it's a construction designed to highlight any and all errors he makes and to tear him down. I don't subscribe to it.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Maybe, just relax a little bit?

Who expects a candidate to agree with all of their positions, or to be happy about everything they do? Not I.

He's the front-runner and he does represent a different way of doing things then before; but he's not perfect and won't please everyone all the time. Every time there's a problem it's going to be trumpeted as proof that he isn't different; it's a construction designed to highlight any and all errors he makes and to tear him down. I don't subscribe to it.

Cycloptichorn

It's not just his positions, Cyclo, it's his mannerisms, tone of voice, venue choices, etc. I know he was filling football stadiums in the primary and he still is, but some of the shine has been taken off since then.

Gala wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Maybe, just relax a little bit?

Who expects a candidate to agree with all of their positions, or to be happy about everything they do? Not I.

He's the front-runner and he does represent a different way of doing things then before; but he's not perfect and won't please everyone all the time. Every time there's a problem it's going to be trumpeted as proof that he isn't different; it's a construction designed to highlight any and all errors he makes and to tear him down. I don't subscribe to it.

Cycloptichorn

It's not just his positions, Cyclo, it's his mannerisms, tone of voice, venue choices, etc. I know he was filling football stadiums in the primary and he still is, but some of the shine has been taken off since then.

Mannerisms? Tone of voice? I guess next you'll be saying that he's 'uppity.'

I mean, wtf. If he can fill large venues, why not fill large venues? If he is a great speaker, why not give great speeches? If he wants to win, why not set up the expectation that he is GOING to win and act as if he is GOING to win?

Some of you don't want him to do what is necessary to win, it seems, and that's just baffling to me. You don't 'nice guy' your way into the WH. You take it.

Cycloptichorn

Who expects a candidate to agree with all of their positions, or to be happy about everything they do? Not I.

I'm not sure who is more liberal....McCain or Obama...

I was really saddened to hear so many young college students pissed because of the court's decision on child rape death penalty.

Obama, too, huh?

Interesting...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Who expects a candidate to agree with all of their positions, or to be happy about everything they do? Not I.

How about just his main platform? Not just some trivial policy difference but the central message in all his branding.

He campaigned on the ambiguous "change", and that worked well because it means a lot of different things to people right now. One of the most common sentiments was that with his Iraq position he showed that he was different from the liberals in politics who've voted right out of political expediency on things like invading Iraq.

That was a big part of his initial support base, he was initially positioning himself well to the left and courting a large base that was disillusioned with Democrats who were too cowardly to vote their principles on things like Iraq.

Now for the general election he needs to move to center in messaging a bit and that's easy to understand. But that doesn't mean he should get a free pass from the left when he begins to compromise their political ideals. The left is right to call Obama out on if he sells them out for political expediency. The left is better served by a strong idealistic candidate while Obama is better served by being perceived as a moderate.

Being a moderate has long been the easy way to mediocre popularity. But a lot of people weren't expecting a moderate centrist as "change" and shouldn't hesitate to pressure Obama if they are concerned that he's venturing too far into the ideology of the right to get their votes.

At some point it just comes down to who's candidate is he? The left or the center? Right now those are not very similar political ideologies and the left should not be happy with center after Bush. That's not nearly enough "change".

Part of Obama's somewhat pristine appeal arose from the simple fact that his public record itself is so relatively short and scanty. He hasn't had as much time, opportunity or necessity for the many compromises and errors that afflict anyone in the political arena. Now, as he multiplies his exposure to the intense scrutiny, no one should be surprised that he begins to accumulate some of these things.

Similarly, now that the contest for the Democrat nomination is over, no one should be surprised that he has begun to move - or at least position himself - to the center in an attempt to broaden his appeal to a larger spectrum of voters.

Obama is simply a contemporary version of the standard left wing Democrat package, previously exemplified by Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry and others; this time with better than average rhetorical skills and brown skin. We may well end up with him as president, but we will survive it.

What exactly do you mean when you say his 'high horse?'

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What exactly do you mean when you say his 'high horse?'

Cycloptichorn

Go away.