Now 'The Nation' -Flagship of the Left- is bashing Obama

[joaama]

Flagship? Really?

Why don't you put all of your "left bashes Obama" posts into one thread?

 

[construct]

Tell me. Was The Nation ever generally supportive of Obama? I don't know, myself. Frankly, I'd be surprised to find out that they were. Sure, they'd support him over McCain and maybe even over Clinton, but they seem more like Kucinich or Feingold people to me.

 

[construct]

IMO... they are more of a Bernie Sanders type

But they wear their moniker well, Flagship of the Left

So they never were supportive of him without qualification. It was more like he was the best available--I mean, after super-Tuesday.

I guess my objection to the thread title is the word 'now'--as if they ever were all that gung-ho about him.

 

[gingentleman]

Another sad and tiresome post from you,Beardaddy. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to try and incite the political climate of this board? Shame on you!

 

[palemale]

BearDaddy and I rarely agree on anything. However, I think Obama's relationship to the left wing of the Democratic Party, and with the left in general, is a worthwhile topic of discussion. Thus, I think the criticism of BearDaddy here is unfair.

The fact is that the left has very complicated and conflicted views of Obama. Many are angry, but choose to keep their criticisms "in the family" in order to not hurt Obama politically in light of their perfectly justifiable distaste for the right-wing loonies that have taken over the GOP asylum. Others aren't concerned and have been publicly very critical.

Ultimately, I think public criticism and pressure is warranted. I don't agree with the "Nation" article BearDaddy cites, however. It's main complaint is that the SOTU speech was boring and did not have any soaring rhetorical moments, blah, blah. It's a silly complaint that downplays some of the articles substantive criticisms. The SOTU is always on the boring side as it essentially lays out the legislative and governing priorities of the administration and, thus, tends to be overloaded with wonky pronouncements. That's just the nature of the speech.

 

[LGNTexas]

The Democratic Party has always had a bigger tent than the GOP, in the latter where one either goose steps in lock step or gets run out of the party. Watch for Sen. Lugar, Snowe, Collins, and other moderates in the GOP get the teabagger sendoff next go around.

The "professional left" got plenty of web hits during Bush and to keep them coming at Kos, HuffPo, FireDogLake, they seem to feel they need to be controversial. Plus some lefties were big Hillary fans who unlike Hillary and Bill, seem to not have accepted the Obama presidency. Ideologues, whether left or right, want ALL of their ideas accepted or they will take their toys and go home. To both extremes, compromise is a dirty word.

 

[joaama]

The Democratic Party has always had a bigger tent than the GOP, in the latter where one either goose steps in lock step or gets run out of the party. Watch for Sen. Lugar, Snowe, Collins, and other moderates in the GOP get the teabagger sendoff next go around.

The "professional left" got plenty of web hits during Bush and to keep them coming at Kos, HuffPo, FireDogLake, they seem to feel they need to be controversial. Plus some lefties were big Hillary fans who unlike Hillary and Bill, seem to not have accepted the Obama presidency. Ideologues, whether left or right, want ALL of their ideas accepted or they will take their toys and go home. To both extremes, compromise is a dirty word.

I was a HUGE Hillary supporter. I mean ginormous.

I know people who supported Hillary and they HATE that Obama is President. They voted for McCain or they didn't vote at all. They just don't think of him as legitimate.

 

[T-Rexx]

The Democratic Party has always had a bigger tent than the GOP, in the latter where one either goose steps in lock step or gets run out of the party. Watch for Sen. Lugar, Snowe, Collins, and other moderates in the GOP get the teabagger sendoff next go around.

QFT

As Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party - I'm a Democrat."

The Democratic Party has always had a greater diversity of opinion than the Republican. And Democrats tend to vote their conscience, while Republicans vote the party.

The article by Jonathan Schell is wonderful! Far from being "bonkers," it is a good thing that Democrats are so able to critique the party and its leaders. A political party should be about discussion of the nation's problems and debate over potential solutions - not blind devotion to leaders who lie about motivations for war, pursue economic policies on behalf of only 5% of the population, and who demand hatred toward minorities.

Were the Republican Party open to debate, I doubt that you would find it pursuing such a bigoted social agenda, ignoring the environmental health of the planet, or advocating the destruction of the middle class.

 

[T-Rexx]

I don't know, BearDaddy, I was one of those Hillary supporters, too, who was very reluctant, indeed, to support him—at least at first. I saw Obama as a rank amateur.

It turns out that I was right. Nowadays, he's practically a Republican.

I agree that Obama is too right-wing to be comfortable as a Democrat. He really should be a Republican. I suspect he was driven to the Democratic Party by the anti-intellectualism of the GOP and its subtle but pervasive racism.

 

[T-Rexx]

The Democratic Party has always had a bigger tent than the GOP, in the latter where one either goose steps in lock step or gets run out of the party. Watch for Sen. Lugar, Snowe, Collins, and other moderates in the GOP get the teabagger sendoff next go around.

QFT

As Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party - I'm a Democrat."

The Democratic Party has always had a greater diversity of opinion than the Republican. And Democrats tend to vote their conscience, while Republicans vote the party.

The article by Jonathan Schell is wonderful! Far from being "bonkers," it is a good thing that Democrats are so able to critique the party and its leaders. A political party should be about discussion of the nation's problems and debate over potential solutions - not blind devotion to leaders who lie about motivations for war, pursue economic policies on behalf of only 5% of the population, and who demand hatred toward minorities.

Were the Republican Party open to debate, I doubt that you would find it pursuing such a bigoted social agenda, ignoring the environmental health of the planet, or advocating the destruction of the middle class.