David Sirota hates ponies, young people, winning, change, etc., etc.
...whenever questions [about Obama] are raised - no matter how gently or how substantive - the person raising it is attacked as a "concern troll," a "whiner," a purist martyr on a crucifix, a self-important attention freak who thinks he/she is a hero, a horrifically disloyal traitor or a "liar" (the last of which is most appalling, since those making the accusations may disagree on opinion, but rarely actually offer up where the questioners are factually inaccurate).
He even goes there, Godwin's pearl-clutchers!
This is the digital brownshirt-ism that Al Gore warned about - where merely questioning why a politician changed his position gets you slandered as disloyal, or worse, provokes absurd Orwellian denials that the policy has changed, when it inarguably has.
Why must people like David be mean on the internet?
The order of the day is to "pick your battles" and avoid the "pointless vitriolic arguments" that ensue when you fail to show unlimited deference to the Best President-Elect Evah.
Sometimes I doubt David's commitment to sparkle motion.
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
When did President-Elect become an honorific? Why isn't Obama
addressed and referred to as Sen. Obama or Mr. Obama?
When did this notion that a person who had won the election must have a special title? And, of course, while he won the election, it would seem that the electoral college must meet and vote before he is actually the "president-elect."
I was sort of thrown that at the press conference announcing his foreign policy team picks, every single reporter addressed Obama as "Mr. President-Elect." Indeed, the transcript used by The Chicago Sun Times uses "President-Elect Obama" throughout, and all Obama's nominees addressed him as "President-Elect Obama."
This is something new, right? And what does it portend?
What does it portend?
When he did his marketed Germany trip, the red flags were flying all over the place.
It portends nothing if he doesn't get his priorities straight. I'll not put up with another Bush-like presidency.
Worst President Ever.
Don't make him look good, Obama.
I can't say as I see anything ominous about...
"President-elect." AFAIK, he's stepped down from his Sen. job, so "President-elect" is the apt term, IMHO.
well, no
Stepping down from the Senate gig just means he can't go by "Senator Obama."* Nothing to do with whether "President-Elect" is a proper honorific.
I don't really recall the spate of "President-Elects" for Bush or Clinton, but I may not have been paying attention. I've always thought it was more of a descriptive phrase than a title. No one's calling Hillary "Madame Secretary Nominate" (or similar silliness for other announced appointments).
I'm off to see if Judith Martin has reviewed this subject.
* at least, I don't think, it seems to me I've heard retired Congresspeople and former presidents still called by their titles.
Bill Clinton was addressed as Gov or Mr or...Bubba (by rightwads
George W. was addressed as Gov or Mr.
Also, altho Obama has resigned his Senate seat, it is traditional to refer to someone by the highest title they held in the past or by their present title.
I have noticed, however, that Bill Clinton was increasingly referred to as former President Clinton, perhaps to distinguish him from Hillary should she have won. But, I guess, it would work that way in print especially that the former is mentioned initially, then he would be titled President or Mr (we've had no women in the office, so that issue is moot) How cool would it have been to have President and President Clinton?).
BTW, Sen. Biden was referred to as Vice President-Elect at the press conference.
In Nov 12, 1991 1st press conference as prez-elect, Clinton was
addressed as Gov. Clinton. He took many questions and eventually reporters didn't even address him by name, just asked the questions. He was already being pressed by the MCM on whether he would honor his promise to gays to allow them to serve in the military. (And Nunn was surprised when he honored his promise? Grrrr.)
Link to PDF.
Indeed there is nothing new about the use of president-elect to identiy the winner of the presidential election--what's new is using it as an honorific title. Which was my point. Seems to be a new title.
I think the use of President-Elect as a title is partly a reflection of the growing power of the executive, Unitary or Imperial. Also the MCMers' adoration of Obama.
Dubya held only one press conference during his transition--!!*
Dec. 16, 2000, after he announced his nomination of Powell as Secty of State. I couldn't find any transcripts (must be somewhere!), but did find some discussion that Powell dominated the press conference and Dubya got a kind of sour expression as he kept being asked questions and anwering them with aplomb.
Bush did appear with Clinton a couple days later and there were questions. One reporter did address Bush as President-Elect Bush, but others addressed him as Gov. Bush. Too tired to go back to hunt for that transcript right now.
*In retrospect, not surprising he held only one presser, since he did not do well as them as we now know so well. Already there were complaints from the MCM that he was inaccesible. Without 9/11, I think he would have been a one term president. But 9/11 brought the MCM around to almost a state of adulation. Sheesh.
President-elect
The term President-elect has been used for as long as I can remember. My memories only go back as far as Jack Kennedy. So, I cannot speak to before that. Oh, and Hillary and the other pending Cabinet officers are properly referred to as Secretary-designate.
The West Wing had a small running joke about this very thing after Matt Santos won the election over Arnie Vinnick. In those episodes, the transition staff kept forgetting to address Santos as Mr. Presidenet-elect and then stumbled around trying to remember the title.
Ah! So the West Wing might be responsible for this new title??
Huh.
I do not recall hearing any cabinet nominees addressed as Secretary-designate Clinton or Atty Gen'l-Designate Holder. Seems reserved right now for the two at the top of the exec branch.
David's...
...words would be a whole lot more convincing if he hadn't spent the whole election as an Obamabot. I used to respect and read him quite a bit...seems he had a good angle by looking at democratic populism in the mountain west....but since the election I won't even bother opening his site.
Could you provide linky goodness (or badness as the case may be)
To examples of where you think DS wrote like a "bot"?
I've only recently become a regular reader of OpenLeft and don't know whether I'd agree with your criticism. "Obamabot" is a rather dehumanizing term, especially to target at an individual. Did he truly earn such an epithet?
Here's a few and a video...
....he always tempered his columns ham-fistedly about his 'reservations' of Obama, while in the next sentence lauding him and going into random tirades about the Clintons. He has a nasty habit of taking actions and then apologizing for them after.
He never has been as bad about it as say, Booman or Jonathan Singer at Mydd, but for a guy who claims to believe the Dems and Repubs are both agents of destruction (something I agree with)...his columns rang of Obamamessiahism.
Clinton wins By Exploiting Race Chasm:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597...
Reservations Aside, I'm Pretty Psyched About Obama
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/22...
Does It Always - ALWAYS - Have to Be About the Clintons?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/15/...
Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/30...
(this one has a good video, starting at 4:52)
An Anti-Clinton for VP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro...
The Moment Obama Grabbed 100,000 Coloradoans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro...
Honest Question - Is Hillary Clinton A Pathological Liar?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/4/2...
The Race chasm alone (which
The Race chasm alone (which he pushed for every primary race after that article was written) earned him the Obamabot title.
And no, it's not dehumanizing to me. Not to be shrill, but he is, in my opinion, one of the worst examples of someone who plays up 'objectivity' and 'media critique', while pushing entirely different agendas in his writing.
Gak, I read those over dinner!
Well, as many as I could stand.
Thanks for standing and delivering. What a bunch of ghastly, ill-supported posts!
I still think "Obamabot" is the kind of term that ends a debate, rather than welcomes one, and I advise against it, especially with Sirota now writing candidly about things that few bloggers will go near.
One doesn't have to forgive and/or forget to appreciate a proper gesture when one sees it.
I hadn't thought of it as a debate ender...
...but I shall keep that in mind if I get the itch to use it :).
I still think his recent words, while welcomed and should be encouraged, reek of career safety--his history alone shows that.
How is harshing the Obamamellow a flight to safety?
Seems to me he's taking a courageous stance, bursting the bubble of Obaman infallibility and calling out the stultifying culture of STFU
.
Doesn't make his awful writing about the primary go away, of course, but it's demonstrably a controversial tack to take, and one that can exact a high personal cost. I say "hats off" to him for shining a light on this problem.
I think....
....Chicagodyke's comment more succinctly puts my ideas into focus. Forgive me for my loose tongue yesterday....I was studying for Grad School subject exams. My mind was in the dramatic, not the precise.
Thank you for taking the feedback to heart
And, again, thanks for a jeroboam of relevant links!
the "Office of the President-elect" is a real entity
since 1964.
Under the law, the Administrator of General Services makes the judgment of who is President-elect and Vice-President-elect based on the "apparent" results of the election and does not have to wait until the Electoral College meets.
It's not the current title
that's an issue.
So why look over there?
Not Sure...
...the whole thing about "president-elect" means much. As a politician, he can most accurately be described as such. Whether those before him were regularly referred to as such seems pretty irrelevant, to me, and I don't think it points to something more ominous.
As for David, I welcome him to the place outside of the "shining Village on the hill" otherwise known within the village as "everywhere else". In Everywhere Else, there ranges every kind of thing from wannabe Villages to wilderness area (Americans cast away to fend for themselmes without a leader).
I am serious, and I approve this message.
david will burn you, as you've found out, VL
i got singed after lauding him, and then finding out he went out and wrote some nasty and racist anti-immigrant crap.
i like reading him when he's right, but to me, he's sort of a Drama Queen. for a while at OL, all he could write about was himself. "my new book" and "i'll be on teevee" and suchlike. i'm glad to see he's on board with defending the Left in our war on centrist DINOs, but frankly, i don't know if he'll count for much. he's sort of like a professional outsider, which can be good, but i think it's been a long time since decision makers have paid much attention to him, if ever.
The "anti-Village" Village
The anti-establishment (Sirota, The Nation, etc.) needs to have an establishment to rail against to boost sales. That's the sort of window I now read Sirota and the rest of the "progressives".
My prefered term for the "'anti-Village' Village'" is
Crypto-MSM.
My preferred term is
"fungus." Fits in so many ways, doncha think?