Contradictory positions of Obama supporters....

[RadioRaheem84]

OK, I am in a debate with a certain Obama supporter over the glaring homage to Obama in Michael Moore's new film.

I asked why did Moore include such a glaring homage to the man even though he supported the same bailout that Moore calls a robbery and a financial coup by Wall Street?

The poster calls me a troll and says that I am there to attack Moore's film and Obama. I tell him, that I am asking an honest question. He writes back and says that Moore did not paint a rosy pic of Obama because Moore mentions that Goldman Sachs is a huge donor. I write back saying that besides that little quirp Moore has us decipher on our own that Geithner is in the White House by his appointment. Moore attacks ALL the Democrats that supported the bailout except Obama. Moore did not include video footage of Obama vocally supporting the bailout.

The poster writes back saying that Obama took a "realistic" approach to the bailout because if nothing was done the house would fall. I wrote back saying that his argument is spurious because that would negate the entire premise of Moore's attack of the bailout; that it was a manipulated crisis in order to force congress to write them a check. I told him that his arguments were saying that the realistic option was the best option at the time.

In order to counter what he believed was a "realistic" approach. I gave him an example of the Bank of England taking over Northrock Bank, firing the incompents and restructuring their books. That was better than giving the bank a blank check with NO oversight or stringe attached.

He still won't address the issue and chides me for putting words into his mouth as he never said the realistic option was the best option. Well I assumed that he meant that the realistic otption was the best option at the time.

Anyways, can people see that Obama supporters are at war with themselves? Michael Moore makes a brilliant film that is ruined by his love affair with Obama and this poster can't even back up his arguments because he is trying to have it both ways.

This man, Obama has not only fractured the left, but left them totally unable to form coherent arguments!

[FSL]

Hope dies last if it dies at all and sadly many people put their hopes in obama-like governments.

If I were you I'd ask him to stop acting like he's the Obama representative in the conversation, decide on whether he thinks the bailout was the best way out, and if not, ask himslef why he'd go in such lengths to defend a policy and the person that implemented it when he doesn't even agree with it.


On another note, UK nationalized banks, payed off any debts and is getting ready to resell them to cappies, as it "is necessary for maintaining competition and through it a healthy market".
Just as disgusting, imo.

[RedSonRising]

I think you exaggerate a bit and perceived it as more than it was due to your nature as a revolutionary who knows how to spot these things. It was not a "glaring homage". He simply said that people were ready to answer unpopular economic policy and "had their voice heard" through the election of Obama. We all know Obama was the wrong answer, and Moore should have included the blame he bears for supporting the stimulus package, but the cultural impact of Obama's election signifies a shift in political attitudes. It annoyed the hell out of me, it was really a point i was hoping he would use to separate current ruling class politics from our movement, but it was like two minutes long. If anything Moore proved that even though Obama may appear to be pro-working class (such as emphasizing the "I'm on your side" quote about the striking republic workers), we cannot depend on him or anyone in bourgeois politics to build the movement, and that it has to start with the working class, who are on their own despite (empty) words of encouragement.

You are correct to tell him that the "realistic" approach is bullshit. The definition of "realistic" approaches are subjective and are bullshit excuses that amount to the hard fact that what had to be done was met with a policy cut short due to restraints and personal interests and a corrupted and flawed ideology.

I feel your pain in the fracturing of the left, but we just have to use systemic explanations to prove to the Obama-loving left that he is simply not working-class representative, socialist, revolutionary, and therefore undemocratically supportive of an oppressive hierarchy.

Obama supporters are frustrating in trying to have it both ways, but at least they aren't opposed to our ideas. Making them a fan of us is more important than making them an enemy of Obama.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think you exaggerate a bit and perceived it as more than it was due to your nature as a revolutionary who knows how to spot these things. It was not a "glaring homage". He simply said that people were ready to answer unpopular economic policy and "had their voice heard" through the election of Obama. We all know Obama was the wrong answer, and Moore should have included the blame he bears for supporting the stimulus package, but the cultural impact of Obama's election signifies a shift in political attitudes.
I know that Moore was trying to show that the collective will of the people wished for change away from the corruption, but he left too many things out that made it seem like he was bias toward Obama.

A.) We were left on our own to think that Giethner appointed himself to the Treasury.

B.) We were left to think that Obama did not have the same economic team that started the crisis.

C.) We were likewise led to believe by omission that Obama did not support the same bill he trashes in his film.

D.) We're led to believe that Obama defied the wishes of his corporate donors.

I mean, Naomi Klein pressed the man on these issues and he answers back in such a way that almost discredits his entire movie. Why fight if we have someone in the White House who will fight for us? All of the criticism Obama is receiving peeves Moore that he even writes about his detractors.

Wolf Blitzer, for crying out loud noticed this obvious contradiction in the film.

[RedSonRising]

I know that Moore was trying to show that the collective will of the people wished for change away from the corruption, but he left too many things out that made it seem like he was bias toward Obama.

A.) We were left on our own to think that Giethner appointed himself to the Treasury.

B.) We were left to think that Obama did not have the same economic team that started the crisis.

C.) We were likewise led to believe by omission that Obama did not support the same bill he trashes in his film.

D.) We're led to believe that Obama defied the wishes of his corporate donors.

I mean, Naomi Klein pressed the man on these issues and he answers back in such a way that almost discredits his entire movie. Why fight if we have someone in the White House who will fight for us? All of the criticism Obama is receiving peeves Moore that he even writes about his detractors.

Wolf Blitzer, for crying out loud noticed this obvious contradiction in the film.

Yea, someone should email him.

[RadioRaheem84]

Michael Moore's answer to Klein's question was too strange. He said that Obama is smarter than the financial crooks because its as if he appointed bank robbers to help secure his bank!

Naomi was like o-k and moved on. Moore also admitted that Obama meets with Larry Summers every morning to discuss economic issues. These are things that should've been left in the movie.

It's ridiculous how much he defends him. A man who made such a great film that champions co-ops and exposes Wall Street.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I don't think his lack of criticism towards Obama took away from the film at all though. There were plenty of other things he could have included in the movie as well that he didn't. From the reviews I read here on RevLeft I was expecting Moore to literally suck Obama's cock on screen for 10 hours.

Granted, anyone who knows anything about Moore knows that he is a fan of Obama but I was pleasantly relieved after seeing the movie myself.

But yes, Obama supporters are annoying and I really wish we had better people to speak for us in the MSM than Michael Moore because our representatives should be attacking the government and not defending it.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think his lack of criticism towards Obama took away from the film at all though. There were plenty of other things he could have included in the movie as well that he didn't. From the reviews I read here on RevLeft I was expecting Moore to literally suck Obama's cock on screen for 10 hours.

Granted, anyone who knows anything about Moore knows that he is a fan of Obama but I was pleasantly relieved after seeing the movie myself.

But yes, Obama supporters are annoying and I really wish we had better people to speak for us in the MSM than Michael Moore because our representatives should be attacking the government and not defending it.


The homage to Obama was only a tiny tiny part no longer than 2 mins tops. It took a little away from the film because if you were to just omit that from your mind you would run away with the thought that this movie is flawless. But then again you would have to delude yourself into thinking that Moore did not leave anything out and presented the whole picture. As much I defend Moore from this detractors and the charges lobbied against him about bias and omission, it makes me think twice about his motives sometimes. While good, still Democratic i.e. Party wise.