As one of the few Iowa bloggers who is not enthusiastic about Barack Obama, I’ve noticed some odd behavior among some of his supporters. I have questions for those of you who back Obama after the jump.
I’ve been thinking about these questions for some time, but felt compelled to write them down after reading this piece by Daily Kos superstar diarist kid oakland, as well as the comments below it.
I’ve noticed that many Obama supporters, not just on the blogs but also “in real life,” are immensely annoyed that I don’t “get” Obama. I hear all kinds of complaints about how cynical I am and how I don’t recognize that Obama is the most gifted politician of a generation, etc.
Last week I was literally lying in a hospital bed, and a family friend who’s a doctor kept calling to check on me. This friend was also a big Obama volunteer in Ames and has continued to make phone calls to voters in upcoming primary states.
I swear to you, every time he called to check on my condition, he was also badgering me about why I am resisting Obama and why I don’t appreciate Obama. One time he actually called back later to apologize, but it was like he couldn’t help himself. He is so annoyed that I don’t acknowledge Obama’s greatness.
I have noticed the same irritation among some commenters at Daily Kos and MyDD (not to mention DrinksGreenTea right here at Bleeding Heartland).
Click on that kid oakland diary I linked to and read the comments below responding to “shpilk.” Like me, “shpilk” is planning to vote for Obama in the general but is not sold on Obama. Actually, shpilk is even willing to donate to and volunteer for Obama, which is further than I plan to go this year.
But look at how annoyed kid oakland and the other commenters are by shpilk’s skepticism.
The same thread has complaints that Rabbi Michael Lerner, a strong voice on the left, has not gotten behind Obama yet. As if Lerner owes Obama something. If Lerner is skeptical about Obama’s commitment to progressive change and/or Obama’s ability to get that done in light of the political strategy Obama has chosen, what’s it to you or to any of these Obama supporters at Daily Kos?
What is going on with you people? Why do you have this psychological need to make every progressive publicly acknowledge Obama’s awesomeness?
Why does it bother you that shpilk or I or whoever aren’t fully committed to Obama’s cause? We’re voting for him. He seems to have plenty of people willing to give him money and volunteer for him right now.
I choose to focus my energy and money on state and local candidates this year who don’t have a million-strong army behind them.
Four years ago I was a precinct captain for Kerry. After he locked up the nomination, I didn’t make it my personal mission to convert every Deaniac or Edwards supporter to believing that Kerry would be a great president. As long as they were planning to vote for Kerry in the general, their views of him were of no concern to me.
I know that Obama supporters are offended when people refer to them as “cultists,” but the behavior of those who just can’t stand to hear skepticism about Obama is one reason you are getting that label.
While I have your attention, maybe someone can explain to me why no one in the Obama campaign is denouncing the strong-arm tactics Obama supporters are using against African-American superdelegates who have endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Here’s another link about the same pressure campaign. Here’s a third link, in case you still don’t believe this is happening. Is this the new kind of politics Obama stands for?
Before you complain about how these superdelegatets should be obligated to vote like their constituents did, tell me why Deval Patrick, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry aren’t similarly obligated to go for Clinton, who overwhelmingly won their state’s primary.
4 Comments
I see similar things on from both Clinton and Obama supporters
I am more annoyed with people that aren’t looking at Clinton’s support for the Iraq War and her pushing the DLC agenda. They say that Clinton will bring change, when all she will do is push the calendar back to the 1990’s. If she was the nominee, I would be in the same boat as you. I’d probably vote for her, but wouldn’t be out there volunteering.
One thing that I have noticed is that non-Obama supporters seem to think that bringing in Republicans means he is being a traitor to the left or that he isn’t a Democrat. I think these people are only viewing the race on a Left-Right spectrum, when Obama is running on a Top-Down Spectrum. He is running to end the influence of the special interests in Washington and get people active in their government again.
noneed4thneed Sun 2 Mar 10:24 AM
bringing in Republicans is one thing
but his way of speaking often seems to suggest that he does not believe that the Republican Party is disproportionately responsible for the mess we’re currently in.
Also, I think some Obama supporters fail to appreciate that key elements of the Democratic base prefer Clinton to Obama.
So while he clearly does better among Republicans and independents than Clinton ever could in the general, he is likely to do substantially worse than Clinton would in the general among several other groups (white women, Latinos, working-class whites, Jews, and possibly Catholics). In certain key states, that will be a problem for us. He may be able to make up for it by bringing out youth, blacks, and independents who otherwise would not vote, but it’s something he will need to address.
desmoinesdem Sun 2 Mar 10:29 AM
Main difference with your Kerry analogy
(for you not trying to convert others) is probably the fact that Kerry had the nomination pretty much wrapped up after NH. As you know, we still have a race going with no certain winner.
I can see why you and many others have your doubts about Obama, and I respect that. I have my own concerns about him too. Some of the more enthusiastic Obama fans make the situation even worse. The reason I keep on engaging you regarding Obama has less to do with Obama, it has more to do with my interest in analyzing the D party. In your commentary you reveal your open dislike and suspicion of someone who dares, on occasion, to question some of the established D party stands. This is where you and I differ. I applaud the fact that FINALLY a prominent D actually has the balls to tell the truth. I think our party needs serious self-examination. We have been way too static in our general party views for too long. I have been amazed that we D’s have not looked in the mirror after the congressional losses since ’94 and the W victories. Only the complete W & R congress meltdown in ’06 provided us with the victory. Prior to that, we were happy with our excuses, be it Bill Clinton’s sexual adventures, ballots in FL or Rovean tactics. Nobody seemed to notice that the American people did not really care for what our party had to sell.
rf Sun 2 Mar 5:02 PM
I basically agree
with RF. I hate voting the party-line just for the sake of a party’s ideological platform. That makes me no different from any Republican who voted for Bush because there was an R before his name. That method of rationalization does not appeal to me. I don’t see it as my job as a citizen to make one party or the other a majority. I want the best politicians in office. I may not see eye-to-eye with those politicians on policy and I may not think they are saviors, but if I think that they are capable of doing what is best for the country that is who I vote for.
Of course, I also see your point on policy. However, I just don’t think that someone who I believe will be a great President will destroy environmentalism or hold back progress on universal healthcare 10 years. I wouldn’t think the first, if I thought the other two. But, I am willing to sacrifice my narrow ideological goals for having a very capable and potentially great leader for our country. Because you don’t understand this – whatever (call it pessimism) prevents you from rounding off the differences – that is why some people may label you a cynic.
Obama wants universal healthcare. But, if you remember the New Deal, it was not created in a vacuum; it was created during the Great Depression. Some things take time and sometimes the circumstances need to be right. This is why Krugman’s raps, and your support of him, are cynical. It’s as if, now that we (will likely) have power (our blue fists clenched at the sky!), we have to punish the Republicans for having power and doing what they thought was right. Let’s just rub it in their face, make them take universal healthcare on the chin, because afterall, that’s what politics is about. The whole point is to get done what is possible, not to destroy new-formed majorities and alliances by pursuing damning policy proposals. I’m just tired of the greediness for power and the salivation for the imposition of ideology when power is attained. It took a Great Depression to get the New Deal; and, without otherwise creating a very bitter and divided political environment, it may take another similar extreme circumstance to get universal healthcare.
drinksgreentea Sun 2 Mar 6:23 PM