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


[Welcome, BooMan readers! You may wish to skip directly to UPDATE 2. Or enjoy the latest. -- lambert]

After a ritual denunciation of the PUMAs, BooMan goes on, sanely, to ask the right question:

How can we possibly believe that Evan Thomas is an objective reporter when he is comparing the president to God?

I know! We can't. And the incoherence?

Here's how BooMan characterizes the PUMAs (leaving out the who-supported-who a year ago thing):

... who have not embraced our new president....

and further down:

... would have had a hard time fully embracing...

What can "embracing" a President possibly mean in operational terms? Can somebody explain to me how BooMan's "embrace" isn't simply a milder version of Evan Thomas's over-the-top worshipfulness?

All politicians, including Presidents, and including our current President, exist to serve our values and interests. When they don't, we can and should hold them accountable and oppose them. That's how an informed citizenry operates in a functioning democracy.

"Embrace" a President? That's not the attitude of a citizen. It's the attitude of a fan.

NOTE Assuming we're not talking, say, Bush and Angela Merkel.

UPDATE 1 And am I right that BooMan claims that Obama won the popular vote based on numbers that leave MI out? If so, way to bind up the nation's wounds, there, guy!

* * *

UPDATE 2 Let me thank BooMan for this truly remarkable image. It's gold:

[By embrace] 'I did not mean 'grab [Obama's] ass and shove your tongue down his throat.'

I meant, and wrote, nothing so vulgar. "Embrace," in English, has a very mildly erotic connotation that sometimes shades over into "worshipfulness" -- which is the attitude that's at issue here. Compare 1 Kings 9:9 or 2 Chronicles 22:

People will answer, 'Because they have forsaken the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why the LORD brought all this disaster on them.' "

Or indeed the allegorical Song of Solomon 2:6:

His [that is, the Church's] left arm is under my head, / and his right arm embraces me.

So, obviously, the post had nothing to do with giving Obama some tongue; that odd picture comes entirely from BooMan's vivid imagination. Rather, I asked a question:

What can "embracing" a President possibly mean in operational terms?

Operationally, what could the PUMAs do to prove they had whatever set of attitudes toward the President that BooMan deems acceptable? I'd guess there's nothing they could do, but it would be up to BooMan to explain that. Oddly, or not, he has no answer. Other than an incoherent splutter of rage.

Next, to reiterate, here's the key point in my original post, above:

All politicians, including Presidents, and including our current President, exist to serve our values and interests.

If a President serves my values and interests, I support them; if they don't, I might not. My point is and was that, measured against that baseline, BooMan's odd standard of "embracing" Obama, no matter how defined, is incoherent; the attitude of a fan, not an informed citizen.

Finally, even BooMan's insults are incoherent. He writes:

The Stoopid should not attempt to reason.

But surely -- and I mean no personal application here -- it is the stupid who should most attempt to reason?* After all, how will they learn to think for themselves if they never try?

I guess I must have hit a nerve...

NOTE * Unless, that is, BooMan would prefer them to become authoritarian followers?

NOTE Let me address BooMan's original post, where he confesses a "degree of sympathy for the PUMA's because I could imagine (a little bit) how they feel." Because I accepted that BooMan wrote those words in good faith, I let them pass. However, I've expressed my views on the feelings trope elsewhere, and so need not repeat them here.

No votes yet


ElizabethF's picture
Submitted by ElizabethF on

on that post are still the same. Hillary v Obama. Of course I would be on the Hillary side but did you notice not much has changed. Perhaps the Obama team might concentrate on bi partisanship within the Democratic Party.

Right now the HIllary has a stronger position as Obama appears to have almost ignored the progressive bloggers.

Submitted by lambert on

Heh. On the buttons, your wish is my command. Let me see...

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Here is what BooMan says in the comments:

"I think her campaign put Jesse Helms to shame. Do you think Jesse Helms was a racist?
Her campaign was even worse that I thought if she aroused all that hatred unintentionally.

by BooMan on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 07:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not an answer. (none / 0)
Do you still think she's a racist?
by Ed J on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 07:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not an answer. (none / 0)
I don't think she's racist in that she thinks she's racially pure or that she is prejudiced. I think she ran a campaign that consciously tried to exploit white people's fear and racism for her personal benefit. That's racist, too.

by BooMan on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 07:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good. (none / 0)
Now try to sell that to heads-of-state of all ethnicities the world over who seem to have embraced her and her desire to make the United States part of the global community rather than it's overlord.
by Ed J on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 08:03:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (none / 0)
it is not in my interests to try to do that.
by BooMan on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 09:36:20 PM EST"

The guy is truly pathetic.

But regarding the "embrace" thing. Pat Lang has some very important posts up lately, mostly addressing the growing confrontation between Israel and the Obama administration over Israel's attempts to gin up war with Iran, but within one post he has the following great throw away line:

"There is always a danger in making a man a king. Once he is transformed, he is no longer wholely yours."

Poor OFB, you almost feel sorry for them, pangs of regret as it were. Certainly not ongoing frustration. Leave the hero worship behind friends.

Submitted by lambert on

Do me a favor and take a screen shot of that, would you? For future reference....

I'd post on it, but when Boo "Grab Obama's Ass and Shove Your Tongue Down His Throat" Man's doing what he's doing, there's no point getting in his way...

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

But unfortunately I don't do this often enough and can't figure out how to paste it as an image....

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

He's on a roll, wouldn't want to stop him.

Not that I'm a psychiatrist, but what I think we are seeing manifested is the slow erosion of a world view which was so important to some: namely, an all-encompasing belief that The One was something special, unique, and the fulfillment of their every dream. Now they are starting to realize he is just another pol (and a center-right one at that), they have an internal need to justify their previous insanity with increased venom directed at anyone who saw through the hype in the first place.

You might say that they are periodically lashing out when they are feeling down.

It's a good thing for them that this PUMA thing they are stalking exists, since otherwise it would have to be invented. Although that doesn't stop them from re-inventing Corrente as a 'PUMA' site, even though it isn't now, and never had been, and some PUMA's were even been booted from here due to their adopting the same truthy tactics as the OFB.

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

Like Photoshop or Fireworks, create a new image (usually hit File then New and choose a pixel size that is fairly large if it asks), then paste into it.

You can then crop it or whatever you want to do with it after that.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

They can't fathom simple facts like:

1. Lambert is not a PUMA
2. Lambert's arguments have zero to do with whether HRC would have been better than BHO, a topic that he (and I) have rarely broached since the primaries ended
3. No one in our midst has any difficulty understanding who the president is (though Obama's GWB impression is mighty convincing)

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Obama chose a blatant racist for his Secretary of State! If one were allowed to object to anything he did, that might be a good place to start.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

BooMan's wicked smaht! He knows what's what, unlike us stoopids.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Do you think, BooMan sees "Obama as BAD BAD BAD and seek(s) to punish him for everything he does regardless of value or correctness."? Is BooMan's "aim is the same as that of Rush Limbaugh, to undermine Obama and destroy him."?

How DARE BooMan say Obama chose an obvious racist as his representative of this country to the rest of the world! How DARE he not embrace Obama's choice as Secretary of State!

For if BooMan is bad-mouthing Obama's Secretary of State, is he not bad-mouthing our President Obama himself? And if he is bad-mouthing the President who we all embrace as our Leader, is he not bad-mouthing our entire country?

Well BooMan can bad-mouth us all he wants! But I'm not going to stick around and listen to him bad-mouth the United States of America!


Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Thank God Obama chose Biden as his VP [Just to be clear: Clinton's vote on AUMF was wrong, but to single her out for contempt and ignore Obama's votes as a Senator was a serious mistake.]

In all seriousness, how depressing is it that the question isn't "Why isn't our president embracing the Constitution?" Or, "Why is our president embracing Wall Street and Versailles at the expense of the American people?"

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

When the party disenfranchised more than half its voters, we predicted what that meant for the kind of president we might get and vowed to hold the party and him accountable. We were right about Obama, much to Booman's chagrin.
We're sticking by our word. He might be our president. Believe it or not, we do acknowledge that. But that doesn't mean we aren't going to hold him accountable. And we're going to bring up the 2008 primary every chance we can. Until the BooMan brigade acknowledges that it had a hand in splitting the Democratic party and weakening it by rigging the primaries, there is no way we will come to an understanding as to how to fix the party going forward so it is responsive to the voters.
We're not stoopid and we're not going away. Booman should just sit back and get used to it.

Submitted by lambert on

This is quite explicit:

...(leaving out the who-supported-who a year ago thing)...

The post is a critique of theories of leadership. Again, quite explicit, and repeated in the update:

All politicians, including Presidents, and including our current President, exist to serve our values and interests. When they don't, we can and should hold them accountable and oppose them. That's how an informed citizenry operates in a functioning democracy.

And what do I get?

[By embrace] 'I did not mean 'grab [Obama's] ass and shove your tongue down his throat.'

Now, don't get me wrong, I appreciate gifts that will keep on giving, but this is not a primary wars post. If I'd wanted to write that post, I would have taken aim at the "feelings" meme, as, again, I point out in the update.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

doesn't mean this post is, or even that these comments are.

After all, we are the ones who would like to see Obama act like a progressive Democrat, whereas BooMan doesn't seem to mind that Obama chose a racist worse than Jesse Helms as his Secretary of State. You would think something like that would irritate the guy. Whatever happened to change we can believe in? Did it get left in the cab?

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

"Until the BooMan brigade acknowledges that it had a hand in splitting the Democratic party and weakening it by rigging the primaries, there is no way we will come to an understanding as to how to fix the party going forward so it is responsive to the voters."
That is how goldberry sees it is constructive.

Boy who cried wolf? That's a fable about a boy who made up crisis to get attention and then when there really was a crisis, no one believed him.
How does that fit here? You're claiming that what happened in the primaries was a fabrication?

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Booman's original post was in response to a comment that I made on TheLeftCoaster. Now, why would he even bother to respond to it if he were so confident that the primaries were conducted in a transparent and ethical manner? Heck, we all expect some finagling and poll positioning and overt propaganda for one side or another. But the RBC was out and out vote rigging, the results hinging on MI. We all saw it before our eyes. If he's right that Obama won by caucuses alone and Hillary was just a bad campaigner and all the rest of the yadayadayada of "The Math", why respond at all? Why not just bask in the overconfidence of the winner and say nothing? It shouldn't merit a response. He should just quietly sing "neener-neener-neeeeeeeener" under his breath and let it go.
But he can't. It's because we're still out here, bringing it up so we can continue to look at it from all sides. We're still split. We're not going to be holding hands and doing kumbaya in 2012 unless the primaries are fixed. For all we know, the party may have lost some loyal voters forever. Why should they ever show up to vote, ever, if their votes mean nothing and can easily be tossed aside when they don't add up for the preferred candidate?
I think Booman jumped on it because he's scared. He knows that the party screwed with the vote and bringing it up over and over again means that that little assault on our democracy will not go quietly into that good night. But he can't shut us up. We're still out here. We accept the election but we're not accepting how the nomination was won. It was disgusting. The party now has an uphill battle to get us back. Obama's not doing such a bang-up job at 11 dimensional chess- just as we predicted. He's not going to be so lucky in 2012. I mean, we might as well vote for a Republican if we're going to get one anyway, right? Or, even more likely, why vote at all?
So, Booman takes the bait. The primaries stay out there. You can ignore the topic if you like but I am enjoying pinging him immensely.

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

and Sarah meant that Booman was the boy who cried wolf?

"Racist!" "Powerhungry c*nt!" "Racist!" "republican b*tch whore!".

Yeah, she must've meant Booman.

I agree with your armchair psychology. There's absolutely no reason for them to keep screaming this crap unless they need to convince themselves and cover up some nasty truth that is gnawing at them deep down inside. They can't defend Obama so they attack.

I used to go to talkleft until the Palin 24/7 smearing started. I've tippy-toed back a few times recently but they seem stuck on mocking Republicans. I get addressing them (as powerless as they are right now) once in a while but the lens should be on Obama and the Dems. They are the folks in control. Seems so much of the left blogosphere can't get out of Republican bash mode (and PUMA bashing as well). Where's the hope and change?

Look, I've admitted before that I have a touch of ODS. BUT, if he were to actually lead and act as a liberal, my fever would go down and I'd say, "well all was ugly but we're getting somewhere."

It's not happening and the bullsh*t we watched in the primaries is manifesting itself in the leadership. That's why I want it brought up every fr*ckin' time.

So gracias, goldberry.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The boy who cried wolf complained about phantoms, and eventually something very real.

Goldberry and company called out very real and very covered-up problems that haven't properly been reckoned with to this day, as evidenced by BooMan's, Kos's, and Jane's various forms of denial and defensiveness.

Submitted by lambert on

good to see you back, Sarah. See my "I guess..." comment on the future and the past....

Submitted by lambert on

... I would rather use current events as a lens to look back at the past, rather than the past as a lens to look at current events.

For example, the role of the Finance Wing of the FKDP, IMNSHO, would be far more effectively addressed by looking at what Timmy and Larry are doing now, and then using the bailouts NOW NOW NOW (and Obama's hedge fund seed money) as confirmation, rather than the reverse. The first is flexible, the second may appear rigid.

But that's just me.

Spacey's picture
Submitted by Spacey on

all around. Seems like Booman is having a terrible time dealing with our new torture promotion President. It is hard for anyone of the liberal or progressive or human rights persuasion to feel anything other than repelled by many of Obama's latest enabling torture endeavors but it has to be real hard to deal with when you were an ironclad Obama worshipper and not just a supporter. He's probably hitting the bottle pretty hard right now too. True believerism and politics just aren't good bedfellows. Anyhow, if everyone would just shut up about everything going down that is abhorrent and repellent Booman will write up a really nice mind suffocating piece in a couple of years about how Obama's betrayal on human rights really wasn't that bad and it worked to create a greater good.

Spacey's picture
Submitted by Spacey on

If you have gone to Princeton and you can't figure out what the current President is up to because nothing being done is congruent to the level of worship you are determined to have for same President, you can figure out what IS REALLY GOING ON and what they are REALLY DOING by watching old episodes of Seinfeld.