It wasn’t a hard call. I wasn’t the only one. I wonder why the "reality based" community silences those who get it right again and again and promotes those who constantly get it wrong? I’m banned from FDL I guess. I’m seeing if this diary shows up; I know my comments don’t, not even to say they are awaiting moderation. I know many others have been banned too. Why? Seems like some people don’t like too much reality in their reality based community.
Obama was not a hard call for me at all. Like most people I think killing people is wrong. Like most people I was aware that Obama (along with most of congress) didn’t have a problem with killing more people before breakfast each day than a serial killer would in a lifetime. Since these deaths didn’t seem to be a moral issue for him I concluded he was a psychopath. That just means he is someone who has no native ability to feel compassion for his fellow human beings. There’s something missing in his head.
If he doesn’t feel anything for all those people then he doesn’t feel anything for Americans either. To me it is just common sense that you don’t elect psychopaths to high office.
But I have noticed that others disagree. I am it seems in a minority, a very severe minority in making that logical jump. Not that there wasn’t plenty of other evidence that Obama was a bad guy if you bothered to look for it of course and not that everyone didn’t know that someone like Kucinich or Nader would be someone who actually believes in what progressives believe in whereas Obama was not.
It seems to have become fashionable of late to say that everyone knew Obama wasn’t a progressive. Well i don’t recall it quite that way at the time but everyone did know that someone like Kucinich or Nader was the better bet. The corporate candidates were "serious" because of their supposed chances of being elected, not their ideology. So while I think most people (ignoring the whole mass killings thing) thought Obama was a progressive they didn’t think he was a particularly great or trustworthy one compared to the likes of Kucinich or Nader who were "unserious".
There’s a diary up now suggesting that because of this potential ban on insurance coverage of abortions (which I think 85% are not covered as things stands) Democrats should not think any moral person would vote for them. I tried to reply saying that moral considerations didn’t seem to enter into voting, but of course my comments don’t show as I am banned.
I do wonder though, why do people NOT take any moral consideration in voting? I see a lot of people here saying they won’t vote Democrat again. I’ve heard that before. Just letting off a little steam. They will all vote Democrat in 2012 if not 2010. How often can you continue to vote for the system that kills a million innocent people before you are complicit? Why is their no moral element whatsoever to voting (and really that stands as a proxy for any political involvement it seems).
I am not Cassandra because really everyone knew, or ought to have known what Obama was. I simply acted differently on the basis of that knowledge.
(I assume I won’t be able to reply to comments here because of being banned — that is of course if this diary appears at all. I have noticed the censorship at FDL is more lax in privately published diaries so I thought it worth a try).
Or perhaps I am Cassandra, because I was ill mannered enough to keep talking about what everyone knew but nobody else wanted to say, and as a result of such ill mannered talking, I am banned along with many others who easily saw all this coming?