Reply #7: I don't think he dismantles it at all--just circumvents it [View All]

[frazzled]

He wrongly concludes that Ms. Harris-Perry was suggesting "that Obama is automatically more deserving of liberal support than Clinton." Dead wrong. She never ever said that or even suggested it. She was making a compelling (and fairly incontrovertible) argument that there was a different standard applied to Clinton's presidency than to Obama's. On those policy issues Sirota claims to be the basis for the withdrawal of his and other liberals' support of Mr. Obama, he does not explain at all why support wasn't withdrawn from Clinton for the many stunningly bad policies he put into place (policies, by the way, that had far more lasting deleterious effects than some temporary measures that Obama has had to concede to)--for instance, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the ending of welfare reform. Many liberals opposed those moves, but never withdrew their support or publicly bashed and admonished him (except in the pages of arcane, small-distribution outlets like The Nation.)

Sirota tries to brush off the "electoral racism" idea by opening with his personal bona fides on speaking out about issues of racism in employment and income disparity. That does not dismiss these far more subtle charges, which thus far none of the critics has addressed: how do you account for the double standard?

I await that answer to the question, instead of dismissals, red herring arguments, and attempts at self-justification. I'd like to see an honest and direct discussion about the double standard issue, based on comparisons.