'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

No doubt this is a Democratic year, but that doesn't prevent Democrats from trying to find a way to lose. The current methodology is by attacking their candidate. Everyone knows The Right is unhappy with McCain, but the reason they win and Democrats lose is that they will choose party over candidate. Not the Democrats, who have a certain knack for screwing up sure things.

It is very simple really. The media is like a two-year old child. They will repeat what they are told by some outside source. If the Democrats profess happiness with Obama, all stories will reflect this and will shift the focus onto McCain's problems. But when there is dissatisfaction in the ranks...MYDD, Daily Kos, Huffington, TPM, Open Left, etc.,...all the sudden Obama has liabilities which leads the dumb media to exploring all of this other liabilities(Islamic name, black, Rev. Wright, no experience, etc.).

All liberal bloggers who have put this dumb FISA issue and Obama's move to the center up as a rallying cry on their sites, which he must do to win, morons, as not enough people agree with you and your leftist views, should be dragged out back and beaten....to quote Bill McNeal.

He broke faith,
said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com.
Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn't. It will spur us to challenge him
.

It angers the blogosphere to its core
, said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com.
We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don't do that again. We can get the public engaged
.

Another Republican term is what angers me.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann":

Let's be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don't have much of a choice
.

At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said.

What is at stake in the 'Netroots'. Mr Moulitsas is your grandstanding attempt to gain further entry into the mainstream. With all it's fame and fortune at the expense of electing a Democratic president.

He goes on:

I don't want to hear him talk about leadership. I don't want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it," he said. "If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn't, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.

By the by, Keith Olbermann's special comment is on this very subject, how the FISA bill none of you have read but love to criticize Obama for selling you out over, is actually so poorly written that it doesn't prevent any of the Telecommunications companies from being CRIMINALLY prosecuted. It just prevents civil cases...i.e...all of Daily Kos joining up in a class action civil lawsuit because, most assuredly, the government is having the Telecoms monitor every single movement of yours.

Stop shooting yourself, Democrats, and the causes of the left by being petulent whiny bastards. The Right doesn't do this and The Right wins. The left does this and the left loses. It really isn't that hard.....don't shit where you eat.

These Netroots take themselves too seriously. The media is now feeding of their childish tantrums. I'm sick of them making Democrats lose.

Obama as nominee has to appeal to ALL Americans not just Democrats. If Obama loses, then this party is OVER. No party that loses 3 times in a row will be viewed seriously.

Shame on the 'NetRoots' bloggers who want to increase their fame and make 'statement's.

Shame on Mydd, Kos, Openleft, Salon.com, shame on you all. Who want fame and don't want to win.

 title=

Tags: FISA, netroots, obama (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

get over yourself

Why did Gore fail to get the base enthusiastic? Why was Nader successful at playing spoiler?

FISA, NAFTA, gun control... Obama DOES NOT NEED to move to the center as this election will be won at the left: the Dem party has grown enough that there is no need for Obama to do as he usually does. AND it is risky if it makes the base less enthusiastic.
He does not need this to win. The myth of Dems moving to the center to win has failed time and time again. And 2006 showed that too.
Obama's move has nothing to do about winning. In fact, it is an unnecessary AND risky move to the center.

I'm assuming that almost everyone who is trying to hold Obama accountable will vote for him. But Obama has to realize that there is a price for him to pay if he chooses to drift to the center.

In any case, I don't understand your point at all and I find it kind of sad that you think that politicians should just be allowed to do whatever they want or not be held accountable. Is there ANYTHING Obama can do for which you would be angry? ANYTHING?

by LeftistAddiction 2008-07-06 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: get over yourself

Obama knows how to win. Le him win. The FISA battle can be engaged later on. Now a election must be won.

My premise is let Obama win.

I think it is idiotic to the max-- all the recent hyperventilating and most of the criticism Obama is getting from his "friends" on the left.  I have heard the condemnations repeated on the "traditional media", who leaped at the opportunity to slam Obama in order to make this election more of a horserace.
 It's so self-defeating, and most is unwarranted.
 Obama is trying to appeal to a wide swatch of voters so he can win big, sweep in Democrats across the country, so he has something to work with when he begins his efforts to "change the country, change the world".

by Makey 2008-07-06 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: get over yourself

I'm not convinced this behavior is going to "let Obama win" though. Not that many of his supporters are willing to write him a blank check for anything he does, I'm afraid. I mean, I think you've got a point that that is a "weakness" in the Democratic Party -- we won't forgive our candidates everything they do to get elected, while the Republicans will, which is how we got eight disastrous years of Dubya -- hardly anyone in his own party would stand up to him for fear of being labeled a "party traitor"!

I see your point about party solidarity being useful to getting candidates elected, but I don't think you can count on the average Democratic Joe Schmoe and Jane Schmane to feel the same way. It's not really in line with the kind of ideals that make a person a Democrat and not a Republicker in the first place. I mean, Democrats just aren't into authoritarianism the way the average Republicker is.

I agree with the poster who said Obama doesn't need to go centrist to win, or at least not that far centrist. I'm worried he'll lose the far left and they'll stay home.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-06 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: get over yourself

i think you as an obama supporter should tread lightly. as an HRC supporter totally disgusted with the berating of many in the Obama-netroots slamming her for being republican-lite, not willing to stand up for progressive values etc., now to be lectured by an Obama supporter to fall in line when he does exactly what she was falsely accused of being.... get over yourself indeed. I'm stuck with him as the nominee, so I have every right to demand that he at the minimum deliver on his new politics mantra, his supporting progressive values themes.

by swissffun 2008-07-06 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: get over yourself

I agree.

by William Cooper 2008-07-06 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: get over yourself

what is this obsession with "winning big"? obama will win if he keeps the base enthused. he can't lose if he does. look at how big the dem edge is in 2008.

i would rather he wins with 52% and with a solidly liberal platform than with 57% and a completely wishy-washy centrist platform with which he can do nothing.

by LeftistAddiction 2008-07-06 08:29PM | 0 recs
You know,

this election will not be won or lost in the blogosphere. Honestly, no one in the real world cares what a bunch of politically obsessed wonks think.

Obama as nominee has to appeal to ALL Americans not just Democrats. If Obama loses, then this party is OVER. No party that loses 3 times in a row will be viewed seriously.

1. Reagan

2. Reagan

3. George H.W. Bush

4. Bill Clinton (Democratic party being taken pretty seriously)

Now... what were you saying?

by sricki 2008-07-06 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: You know,

The only message the corporate media will let out is "Obama has trouble with the coalition."  Not anything about immunity for the telecoms.

by Makey 2008-07-06 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

I am glad people are speaking out on the telecom immunity - it is just plain wrong.  But to think they are getting "the message" out to the masses is just plain wrong.

The only message the corporate media will let out is "Obama has trouble with the coalition."  Not anything about immunity for the telecoms.

And most keyboard activists (not all) are not the ones who will be working to get Obama elected.  

I have probably encountered 75-100 Obama volunteers in the past week - NONE (not one!) cared about FISA.  But what they did care about was registering voters.

Don't paint everyone with such a broad brush.

by Makey 2008-07-06 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

Someone who volunteers for Obama isn't going to discuss things like FISA anyway.  Dedicated supporters are going to support him no matter what.

It's the wavering voters who are an issue. I don't think many care about FISA, but some care about campaign finance, and some care about gun control, and some are concerned by some of his rhetoric on abortion and Iraq. (I'm not worried about the last two though -- I don't think he's serious about them.)

I don't think it's any specific single issue that's causing the muttering -- I think it's a sort of general "We don't get what his strategy is and we don't know how much of it he's serious about." It would probably be a good idea for him to be a bit clearer about that.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-06 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

that's frankly damn frightening that you claim Obama supporters don't care about the FISA issue at all. Sorry, but that's a major issue. If he can't stand up for that, and get the message across to the American voters how critical this govt encroachment that is being pushed by the GOP is for basic freedoms, then sorry what good is he? I'm not in the DEM party to get a personality in the WH. I'm in the DEM party to get someone in their that will stand up for values.

I see your rationale that let him get elected, THEN he'll do the right thing, as encouraging the bamboozlement of the US electorate. A DEM nominee should say and do what he/she really intends to promote as President DURING the election process - shouldn't people know whom their electing?

by swissffun 2008-07-06 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

What is at stake in the 'Netroots'. Mr Moulitsas is your grandstanding attempt to gain further entry into the mainstream. With all it's fame and fortune at the expense of electing a Democratic president.

Do you have any basis for making this charge?  Perhaps Markos said what he did because he actually believes it?

Stop shooting yourself, Democrats, and the causes of the left by being petulent whiny bastards. The Right doesn't do this and The Right wins. The left does this and the left loses. It really isn't that hard.....don't shit where you eat.

The Right aren't whiny?  They never stop their crying.  They were pearl clutching and gnashing teeth over Clark's comment, over the Move On ad, over Kerry's joke, over Obama's public finance decision etc ad (true) nauseum.

What the right doesn't do is cave on its (pathetic) core principles and try to sell off such a cave in as a "compromise" to its base.

by scientician 2008-07-06 07:20AM | 0 recs
The biggist difference

Between the right and the left is that they keep their biggest nutjobs hidden, while we call ours "netroots."

by Brandon 2008-07-06 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggist difference

I dunno, some of their evangelical nutjobs are pretty visible. Like James Dobson (blech!!!)

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-06 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggist difference

They have many very visible nuts.  William Kristol, David Frum, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Oliver North, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, James Inhofe, Rick Santorum, Rudy Giuliani...

The difference is, their nuts are treated with great respect for being such Serious People.

by scientician 2008-07-06 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggist difference

Want to read something funny yet appropriately gross and disgusting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism)

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-06 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggist difference

Don't look now, but you are part of the netroots.

Why smear an entire community as being nuts?  And what makes you so sane and us so crazy?

by scientician 2008-07-06 10:04AM | 0 recs
You ought to be ashamed of yourself

We're a nation of laws, not of men.

People are standing up for privacy, a basic tenant of liberty. Our duty as citizens is to stand up for the Constitution, for the Bill of Rights.

by catfish2 2008-07-06 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You ought to be ashamed of yourself

I wish I could trust you catfish but I just look at this as an opportunity for you to trash Obama.

P.S.: Hillary has been MIA on all of the FISA stuff so would you be taking her to task too if she had won the nomination?

by sweet potato pie 2008-07-06 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: You ought to be ashamed of yourself

Did Hillary have a stated position on FISA?

Anyway, doesn't matter what her position is -- she has to keep her mouth shut about it for fear of making a gaffe and being accused of "betraying" Obama. No chance we'll hear what she actually thinks.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-06 07:52AM | 0 recs
People standing up for their rights

is a good thing.

by catfish2 2008-07-06 08:37AM | 0 recs
Citizens have a duty

and it's not to obey a president like you obey a king.

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

--United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

by catfish2 2008-07-06 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Citizens have a duty

I'll never be anyone's lapdog, that's for sure.  If you're not a progressive, I can't vote for you.

by William Cooper 2008-07-06 11:56AM | 0 recs
Weren't you jumping on Obama

just last week for throwing Clark under the bus?  So I take it the Clark fiasco last week made you more upset than this FISA capitulation stuff?  I thought he also threw Clark under the bus but perhaps Bill Burton once against went off the reservation and fired a press release without getting authorization because that press release contradicts what Obama said the next day.

by Blazers Edge 2008-07-06 07:38AM | 0 recs
So Burton has done that before

But of course it was his fault.

by catfish2 2008-07-06 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

No one should be asked to give up their right to speak their opinion just because other people worry it will hurt their candidate.  It may seem like we live in a fascist state but last time I checked we still have the right to free speech.

by JustJennifer 2008-07-06 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

hmmm.....    did you feel this strongly about duck-marching back before the Iowa caucuses when HRC was supposed to be the nominee? nope. it was just fine to slam her and ruin that brand so to speak. now were talking about substantive policy issues that go to the core of the US future - FISA and all the issues surrounding govt surveillance are central to that. don't dare berate me for demanding that the DEM candidate stand up for the constitution - especially when he became the candidate by promising just that. i want a president for the values they fight for, not just the letter before the name on a ballot.

by swissffun 2008-07-06 10:18AM | 0 recs
If it's all about winning

Then what happens after the banners come down and the real work of governing must be undertaken? Why should we elect a leader whose only consistent principle appears to be winning at any cost - no matter what principles and values are compromised?

by pan230oh 2008-07-06 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: If it's all about winning

Its not all about winning.  It's about changing the course of the nation.

Good post.

by William Cooper 2008-07-06 11:57AM | 0 recs
you lost me at KO.

by canadian gal 2008-07-06 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves

He should stop campaigning to Filibuster FISA and volunteer at an Abortion Clinic. Then he should go over to the House of Representatives and beat the crap out of Pelosi until she agrees to impeachment hearings.

Just for starters!

by QTG 2008-07-06 11:00AM | 0 recs
One bright note in all this....

The "blogosphere" has been demonstrated to be much less influential than those who operate websites for their own personal benefit would have us believe.

The number of bitchers and whiners on all the sites you listed combined wouldn't carry the difference in one city, much less one state.

by Beren 2008-07-06 01:28PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads