If you have "no place to go," come here!

The low spark of Obama trolls

vastleft's picture

Just checked out the DailyKos version of Lambert's landmark post on Obama's ill-considered Kumbaya strategy.

The arguments against were of precisely the same low quality you'd find at rightwinger blog or a Christian apologetics site.

Here are the first five "rebuttals":

1. Jeez, didn't LC (Larry) Johnson already run this... particular hit piece? His was shorter and easier to read than your screed.

I.e., my short attention span — and my canny mention of a random post in the world's busiest blogging community — qualifies me to call your thoughtful analysis a "hit piece." See, see, I gotcha, and I didn't even have to address the substance of the original post!

2. Reminds me of a Dennis Miller rant.

I.e., I'm comparing it to a guy who's not funny or progressive anymore. See, see, I gotcha, and I didn't even have to address the substance of the original post!

3. You completely misunderstand Obama (just as conservative columnists do) by taking him completely literally - like he actually wants to sit down and compromise with arch-conservatives. "Post-partisan" rhetoric is a clever tool for cloaking progressive reforms.

I.e., how dare you expect Obama's words to be defensible! By pretending to be an accommodating wimp who repeats disempowering Village memes, he's actually going to be strong and will get to change everything!

4. as a black man [he] can't win without campaigning as a centrist, and that's what he's doing.

I.e., a guy with that much melanin belongs in the centrist part of the bell curve.

5. [Re: the clever "post-partisan rhetoric" strategy] This is so obvious that, at some level, his Democratic detractors must understand it. But they have their own candidates to sell.

I.e., I'll bet you like poopy old Hillary or poofy old Edwards. See, see, I gotcha, and I didn't even have to address the substance of the original post!

C'mon Obamaites — better trolls, please!

If Obama does win, I hope these guys are available to play their signature song at the inauguration.

No votes yet


chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i knew one of the complaints would be 'too many words! ouch, my brain hurtz!' lame.

and people wonder why i almost never spend any time there.

Submitted by lambert on

That paragraph with "What the Obama fan base says" says in it the distillation of about 12 hours of trench warfare at Big Orange.

As I said, somewhere else on my travels, HRC supporters, when argument fails, devolve to "You hate her."

Obama supporters, when pressed, devolve to Obama's personal history or personality or authenticity.

I know which argument I prefer, and which set of supporters I find more impressive.

And, to be fair, I didn't go out and test what Edwards supporters do when pressed.

We do need to beware of the notion that "we're smarter than they are...." Worked great for Adlai Stevenson (never did take that shot at Obama), not so great for the rest of us.

I guess what I like about Edwards, and Dodds, is that they really are fighting. And Edwards, in particular, made a ton of money fighting and defeating my enemies on behalf of people they screwed. If Edwards needs to sit down at the "big table," he'll have people to do that. I just don't see that argument as dispositive in Obama's favor.

That said, the top three are more than acceptable HRC less so to me). Let's hope we stay lucky.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

we'll destroy you.

Just kidding...kinda.

Seriously, why does Bob Johnson hate you so much? I heard he's even begun talking shit about you in the NAMBLA chatrooms.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I don't think having qualms about Obama makes one better than those who don't.

But I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and the tenor of online Obama defenses is unmistakably identical to arguments by rightwing Christianists.

They never debate the substance.

For example...

I might argue as follows: "Obama should stop overplaying the religion card. He is disrespecting the separation of church and state, he quite directly reaffirms GOP straw men about Democrats being derisive toward religious people, and he's going over-the-top -- and scaring and marginalizing secularists -- when he says "faith plays every role" and "I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God," and when he endlessly conflates "values" and "morals" with religion.

Responses will be:

1. Lighten up. Everything Obama has said and done was amazing, and I got weak in the knees hearing him say and do it.
2. Hillary sux. Why must you like Hillary so much? Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Bleh.
3. He's just doing that to get elected. In this one case, hypocrisy is brilliant and admirable.
4. O, gawd, another person complaining about Obama. I'll cover my ears and make noises until you go away.
5. Edwards's vote on some random and completely unrelated bill wasn't as good as Obama's vote on some other random and completely unrelated bill
6. You atheists are a minority, which means you're unimportant
7. Obama is a minority, which means he's important

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on that, unlike kos, virtually anything is up for discussion. In depth. With passion.

Without fear of being banned.

I registered at kos right at the beginning... and never made a habit of going back. There is something about agreeing herds of posters that really bugs me. There is no admission of the possibility of deeper politics under the surface of circumstance much less any effort to examine and try to understand them.

"Cult of Personality" is the perfect link to describe American presidential politics, and until we can get past it, the Republic remains in jeopardy.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

...for a completely frivolous reason to support Obama. For the first time since the 1980s we can elect someone who doesn't sound like the Johnny Reb who shot your great, great grandfather in the forehead at Shiloh. As progressive as Edwards may be as a yankee from Chicago it'd be nice to finally elect someone who sounds more like me than someone who talks like he's got a mouth full of corn pone. After spending most of my adult life under presidents who either sound like Jeff Davis or have all but tried to roll us back politically to 1859 I'm more than ready to elect someone who isn't from the Confederacy geographically or in spirit. Obama sounds like a guy who graduated as President of the Harvard Law
Review and taught constitutional law at U. of Chicago. Edwards sounds like the son of a mill worker instead of the graduate of University of North Carolina law school he is. Hillary sounds like the woman on the phone from Citicorp who wants to know when you're gonna make your mortgage payment.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... please do what you can to propagate that "son of a mill worker" meme. Nice antidote for the "haircut" malarkey.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

...cultivating a speaking style more like Gregory Peck playing Atticus Finch than the redneck drawl of a guy who never made it out of the mill. His aw shucks accent is much more pronounced than it was in 2004, I guess in an effort to make himself sound more "authentic" and less slick to rural Iowans.

I have no idea if it plays in Iowa but my guess is it won't play at all in the South where Democratic voters are tired of being considered hicks and won't buy a guy who dresses like it's casual Friday down on the farm.

Submitted by lambert on

It just never stops. Reminds me of an old Maxwell Smart episode:

Captain Groman: My servant Ming can help us. Perhaps you’ve seen him.

Max: Oh yes, the big Chinese fellow.

Captain Groman: Chinese?!? Good heavens, of course!! He’s Chinese!! I wondered why he was so hard to understand. I thought he had a speech impediment.

Meaning, I don't give two shits whether Edwards speaks like Captain Groman's servant Ming, as long as he wants the policy outcomes I want!

If I want to worry about accents, I'll wait for MoDo's next column.

Sweet Jeebus.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.