Andy, you’re… very wrong. She’s not condemning the system, she’s condemning Obama. I wouldn’t argue she’s condemning Obama to the exclusion of anything else, but she was condemning Obama. It’s an incredibly common leftist critique of him. Especially people who lived in the Middle Eastern area during his presidency (which Omar was not, but I know people that did and they absolutely talk about the same thing with great passion).
The criticism isn’t really meant to “smear Obama’s legacy” or anything like that, dude isn’t running again, who cares? It’s to point out that we can’t just elect a “centrist” Democratic politician who put kind words and rhetoric on things like drone strikes and inhumane operations against immigrants just because said candidate is less of an obvious asshole than Trump, or weaves a narrative about hope we want to hear.
This doesn’t mean Obama did everything wrong, he absolutely did some things I’m thankful for, but he did do some things that were awful from a humanitarian perspective. To be honest, I don’t envy his position. I don’t know what choices I’d make if I were in an office where military leaders were constantly winding me up about threats abroad, I have no idea how I’d handle people counseling me about this or that threat about illegal immigration. I like to think I’d stop or minimize drone strikes, I like to think I’d disband ICE, but who the fuck knows really?
Omar backpedaled, and I really think she shouldn’t have, it’s obvious she was criticizing Obama and she should own that. But she brought up valid issues I think shouldn’t be dropped. That doesn’t mean we have to grab Obama and put his head on a pike on stage at the next DNC, but it does mean we have to be very vigilant about candidates preaching a hopeful, uplifting narrative, when they could be more than willing to ramp up inhumane immigration enforcement and bombing runs.
The statement was poorly written, the best evidence for that being that it is entirely possible to interpret it in utterly different ways. Written rather clumsily, isn’t it? I might take the “polished/pretty face” line as being a direct observation of appearance, or a commonplace metaphor for facile and shallow.
What is the author trying to say? Clearly “Hell, yes” or certainly, “fuck no!”?
Even if your interpretation is entirely accurate, an attack on Obama isn’t (or shouldn’t be) “offensive”. Insisting that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence is offensive, if you want an example. Fixing that would take much, much more than a “PR control” statement. Criticizing Obama would be no big deal at all.
She wasn’t criticizing Obama, beyond a general criticism of the endless war and mistreatment of migrants (neither of which were ended under his watch), but even if she was, that doesn’t require an apology unless it’s based on bullshit like birtherism or something like that. Obama is not a sacred cow. It’s okay for Democrats to talk about his legacy, and even be critical of certain aspects of it.
Alright, maybe it was a mild criticism of Obama, in that he continued the endless war policies and mistreatment of migrants to some extent, which doesn’t conflict with the other positive things she’s said about him. I’ve been critical of him on many issues, and I still think he was a good president, in general.
This is a good point. Perhaps Omar and AOC can leave the Democratic Party, and Sanders can join. It would be like a wobbly washing machine being fixed to be on the level.
Like it or not, in politics, the tone, nature, and context of the message matters. Ilhan Omar has more responsibilities in what she says than just making sure it’s factually defensible. Saying something that is factually true but which is to the benefit of Republican traitors is not a smart movie.
That’s a real good idea for a way that progressives could ensure that the Democratic party stays skewed toward the right, and that progressives remain out of power. On behalf of the left, thanks for the suggestion!
Out of curiosity OP, how far does your commitment to see Omar defeated go?
If you are supporting someone else in a primary against her, that’s great, that’s what the party does, tries to see what the best ideas for the party to put forward are.
If she wins the primary, though, will you be supporting her republican opponent?
Very unlikely. It would have to be a moderate Republican who disavowed Trump (not just murmuring that his statements are “troubling”) for me to even consider it.
Exactly so. Many of “The Left” (as if there is one such thing) were unhappy with Obama because he had campaigned that he would govern as a moderate trying to unite and find workable pragmatic compromises and then he actually did try to do it. Both the Right and the Left had been sure he was lying and would actually be a hard line progressive!
Not so sure it is realistic to expect those who believe that to pretend they believe otherwise.
OTOH at this particular point in history all elected as Ds need to be laser focused on the importance getting a D in the presidency number one, and trying to get control of congress two. This is not a time for a Tea Party of the Left and not a time for hitting on the hot button issues of your tent mates, whether by intent (which is what I see AOC doing) or without (Ms. Omar I think). Once you have the limelight use it well.
Exactly. Take a look at the hard left UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives have been a disaster but they still lead in the polls because Corbyn cares more about purity and enabling the hard left anti-semites than he does about Brexit. That’s why there was a party split, most people don’t wake up in the morning more concerned with policy towards Israel and Venezuela than day to day life.
Because rather than supporting her party, she is helping the GOP by indulging in 'whataboutism"- which is a crappy tactic and a logical fallacy. Tu Quoque Fallacy.
It may be somewhat true but it’s water under the bride and pointless to bring up, so why engage in such logical fallacies and help the GOP in it’s battle to win American for the racists?
She doesnt know when to shut up. She needs to go, she is just making the Democratic party look bad and losing support nationwide. This may leave the Senate in GOP hands, give trump the White house for another 4 years and let the GOp get back control of the house.
Those are generally called 'whataboutism" a* Tu Quoque *Fallacy, because when brought up *today *they are 99% used to deflect debate away from bad things that are being done NOW! “Hey Mr Trump would you stop putting kids in cages?” “Well, Obama did something similar, so then of course we can’t ask Trump to stop his racist and evil policy.”:rolleyes:
So, in a history book- fine. In a debate as a* Tu Quoque* Fallacy- bad.
I don’t much give a shit what namecalling you want to engage in. Your advice is that those people you call anti-capitalist should take steps to ensure we remain out of power. Your helpful advice is noted.
This is a silly analysis. Plenty of people on the left held the dual positions that Obama was far too right-wing for their tastes, and still likely to be the best president they’d ever seen.
People who can hold two thoughts in their head at once can say, “I voted for Obama, and I’m glad I did, and he should not have spied on US citizens or detained so many immigrants or ordered so many drone strikes.”
“Once you have the limelight, use it well”? AOC and Omar have the limelight now, and they’re using it to highlight issues important to them. Omar might not be having much success, but AOC is rocking the shit out of her moment in the limelight.
Is your objection that they’re not using their limelight to highlight the issues that you would highlight, if somehow an old white moderate dude like you got the same limelight they’re getting now?
As for “Tea Party of the Left,” why on earth not? Look what the Tea Party of the Right managed to accomplish in a single decade.
Right. “*We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was. And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”
*
This is exactly how the GOP defects criticisms of what Trump is doing, by “whataboutism”. And here’s the point- yeah bad things were done in the past, but how does that excuse you from doing those bad things right now, in the present day?
So, she is toeing the party line- unfortunately it is the Republican party, not the Democratic party.
The advice they are offering - and which you are falling for - is just terrible.
For some reason, there’s quite a few liberals who look at AOC, Omar, and Tlaib etc and are encouraged that if Dems run die-hard progressives, we will win nationwide elections.
It’s bullshit.
Each one of them won in districts that went to a Clinton by like 55, 60 points. These hard-line partisans are fine candidates for their districts, but let’s get this straight: it’s the moderate Dems who took seats in swing districts who actually won the House.
Just try running Omar, AOC, or their ideological compatriots in these districts and see how that turns out.
ETA: and lets just remember that Obama won and Sanders/Stein/Nader/etc didn’t. If you want to remain out of power, I suggest Dems nominate candidates you see as ideologically pure.