Are white liberals abandoning the president?

[Mr Deltoid]

A Nation writer worries that an "insidious form of racism" explains their criticism of Obama. I don't see evidence
BY JOAN WALSH

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/09/25/white_liberals_obama

The Nation's most-read article this week is by my friend Melissa Harris-Perry, "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama." Perry doesn't mention any white liberals by name, nor cite polls showing a decline in support for President Obama among white liberals (as opposed to white voters generally, where his approval rating has dropped sharply). But her piece touched a nerve because of the widespread perception that white liberals are, in fact, abandoning the president.

...

I couldn't find any polls measuring "white liberal" support for President Obama, but it's safe to say many white liberals are disappointed in the president. I think Harris-Perry is wrong when she generalizes about two things: that white liberal disappointment is due to "the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts" (which she calls "a more insidious form of racism"), and that it's likely to lead to white liberals "abandoning" Obama in 2012.

...

Barring more major trouble with the economy or a big misstep by the president, I expect Obama's support by all demographic groups to be higher at the ballot box than it is in opinion polls today. Elections concentrate the mind.

Good article

[FrenchieCat]

1. Did you know how the Tea Party came to be?

The Tea Party phenomenon, in stark contrast to the Wall Street protest, was brazenly built-up and slickly marketed by the corporate media itself. It’s debut starred Wall Street media figure Rick Santelli, who initiated a rant on the corporate media channel he worked for, CNBC. The rant he became famous for encouraged a protest centered around the fact that the Obama Administration had dared propose measures offering a lifeline to help ordinary citizens on Main Street, who were losing their homes due to the mortgage financial meltdown. Although some mistook the Tea Party rant as a call to protest the bank bailouts (which occurred in 2008), that was never its intent, and Santelli made that clear at time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQQfzXQ6UjA&feature=related

Michael Barrone, a conservative writer, explained it quite well in his nolstagic tribute to Rick Santelli, over a year later.

“The government is promoting bad behavior,” Santelli began. The object of his scorn was the Obama administration’s Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan providing aid to homeowners delinquent on their mortgages.

“This is America!” Santelli declared. “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?”

snip

Ever since, the Tea Party Movement has been pumped up as a powerful political factor. It played a significant role in limiting the reform negotiations in the Affordable Care Act, by cowering many Democratic Blue dog congresspeople to vote against a key element of the original plan, the public option. The “movement” was also partially responsible for the loss of the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, which ended in GOP hands. The 2010 defeat of Democrats all over the country is directly attributed to the Tea Party’s fanaticism, but was only made successful via a generous and relentless helping of national media coverage (while the media also worked hard to dampen Democrats’ enthusiasm).

In other words, what started as a rehearsed televised rant against a new administration that was attempting to help people who were suffering the most, ended up bringing Republicans back to power in our national politics and in our state legislatures. This, then, resulted in other extreme actions of union-busting, the systematically diminished value of our teachers, firemen and police officers, and the lay-offs of 500,000 government employees,adding to the unemployment numbers – a GOP wet dream for their “One Term Plan” for our current President, and the never-ending assault on anything our President proposes to help this country. Again, all brought to fruition by one rant cultivated by the so-called mainstream media into a well-financed movement. That, folks, is the true breadth and strength of our mainstream media. That is what they do.
http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2011/09/25/what-the-media-is-doing-to-the-wall-st-protest-is-what-they-are-paid-to-do/

[nevergiveup]

2. According to DU they are

but the ones I know in my real life are not. I think we are all disappointed on this or that issue but it is always going to be that way to some extent. It is more than 365 days until the election. By this time next year most white liberals will be enthusiastically on board. You can count on it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. The ones that *YOU* know maybe aren't. But there has been a great deal of discussion

of this very issue on black political blogs, on black talk radio, at discussion forums on race, at hair salons and barbershops, and yes, at churches all over the country.

We want to know why it is that white American voters refuse to stand behind this president, seeing what we has been handed and how his policies have deliberately been obstructed.

Black Americans are the most loyal of Democrats. We stood behind Clinton as he championed policies that had detrimental impacts on black American lives. We stood behind him even as most whites--liberal and conservatives--abandoned him over Monica. We held Al Gore accountable when he abandoned Clinton during his campaign.

And for many, many decades, whenever there was a black Democrat running vs. a white Democrat running, many black voters chose the white Democrat. (There are many examples of this phenomenon.)

All that most of us ask is that Obama be afforded the same respect, and be given the same chance as other Democrats have received. I personally feel that if this country can give Clinton 8 years and allowed Bush to skate by with another 8 years, then it is only right and fair that we give this president a chance, not just because he is black, but because of the 16 years+ of Democratic and Republican president messes that he has been left to clean up!

When people declare that they are not voting for him, or that they'll stay home, many of us black Americans are left wondering why after we stood behind other Democrats in the past.

[Mimosa]

83. Disillusionment isn't the same as abandonment.

Liberal Stalwart, I haven't heard a lot of people on D.U. or elsewhere say they won't vote for Obama again.


I disagree that 'white Americans refuse to stand behind this president..' as you stated above. True believer Republicans in general will always remain what they are. The swing voters (never reliably Democratic or Republican) are always those who determine the results of tight and not so tight elections.

The economy is what has people disappointed. It's hard to keep believing and supporting when you have lost your job or can't get a job, when you can no longer afford health insurance and you personally don't feel things are getting better. That is the reality for 20%, maybe more, of Americans of all races. Many feel it no longer matters whether they vote or not, that the game is fixed. Surely you know black people who say that? I do.

I think Perry Harris or whatever her name is wrote some divisive finger pointing nonsense.

[demgrrrll]

93. Good post. Could not agree more.

[DJ13]

3. I dont believe liberals (especially liberals) judge him by skin color

The fact is he sold himself as being more liberal than he has been once elected, so after all these years of waiting to elect a liberal its natural for disappointment to be expressed.

That would hold true regardless of skin color.

[frazzled]

25. I think it's hard to judge these things

I know we'd like to believe it has had nothing to do with his skin color, but these things can be very subtle. I, for one, do not think he sold himself as being all that liberal. I listened to all 20-something debates, and I didn't get that impression. I think a lot of people read into him a more radical agenda than he was truly espousing precisely for the reason that his skin color would suggest he should be more liberal or attuned to certain issues. Is that racism? (expecting most black politicians to be on the radical side of the political spectrum? )I don't know. It's quite possibly at least stereotyping.

I have to admit that I had a little more intimate knowledge of him because he was my senator, and because I met and talked to people who knew him and worked with him (a law professor colleague at U of C, for one).

My impression from the beginning has been that Obama is someone with liberal basic beliefs himself, but who strongly believes that when conflict occurs between competing interests one needs to work within the political realities to get things done, which includes making some compromises to get something rather than nothing. He has never been a firebrand, and never will be. I think that most people who are "disappointed" didn't watch or listen to him very carefully. I got exactly what I expected, and I am therefore not all that disappointed.

I do think people have applied a very pronounced double standard with respect to this president, but I'm not sure it has to do with his race. It may have more to do with the economy. It has to do with unrealistic expectations of what a president can achieve. It has an awful lot to do with style. Although Obama can play the rabble-rousing ideologue if necessary, that has never been who he is. He has always believed that people with whom he disagrees, be they dictators or political opponents, deserve to be talked to and listened to. And that opponents are sincere in their beliefs. He made that clear a thousand times during the debate, and actually took a lot of flak for it from the other candidates (saying he would talk to Ahmedinajad, for example.)

People may have thought that the whole "hopey changey" thing meant that he planned to effect radical change overnight. The criticisms started coming 3 months into his election. But from the moment of his election he stressed that change would not come quickly or easily, that it would be hard. Nobody seemed to be listening. I don't think he was the one who portrayed himself incorrectly. I think people didn't take him at his word and projected things onto him that were not realistic--especially given the shitpile of devastation he inherited. Has he made mistakes? You betcha. But certainly no more--and I think a lot less--than Clinton did. The rancor is what is so curious and dispiriting to me.

I've seen more vitriol thrown at this president than was thrown at Bush, and certainly more than Clinton. And the response to that is usually "we expected MORE of him." Really? Why didn't you expect it of Clinton? Because Clinton was way less liberal than Obama has been. Way.

[ProSense]

28. Excellent

" I think a lot of people read into him a more radical agenda than he was truly espousing precisely for the reason that his skin color would suggest he should be more liberal or attuned to certain issues. Is that racism? (expecting most black politicians to be on the radical side of the political spectrum? )I don't know. It's quite possibly at least stereotyping."

...point. Like, "I voted for the black guy."

I find it hard to believe that people with specific policy expectations were so naive that they overlooked the actual policies being pushed.

Expectation is an excuse to justify labeling the President a disappointment and failure.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. Case in point: Sure Obama said that he was against the invasion of Iraq

But, he also stated--many, many times--that leaving Afghanistan was wrong; that Afghanistan was where we needed to expend our resources; and that he would draw down troops in Iraq and deploy them to Afghanistan...

And yet, many people are behaving as if he had never made this statement; as if he had in fact lied! He did exactly what he said--over and over again--he would do.

Again, I think many liberals simply projected onto Mr. Obama what they wanted him to be rather than what he is. To hold him accountable for that is unfair.

And yes, they use this expectation as an excuse to justify Obama as a failure and also as a justification for not voting. I want to challenge them to be honest with themselves and take responsibility. But, I also want them to realize how unfair it is to project all of their hopes and dreams onto one man; that it is irrational not only to have these expectations, but to expect that their expectations be fulfilled in such a short period of time.

[louslobbs]

96. +1

Lou

[jaxx]

35. If I could rec your post, I would.

I agree with what you have said here, thank you for setting it straight. I have supported PBO for a long time and I am not disappointed, he is what he told us.....not what was imagined.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. The assertion that many expected more of Obama than of Clinton

again, leaves many black Americans wondering why.

Your post was excellent! Thanks!!

[demgrrrll]

94. Fantastic post. Right all the way.

[PragmaticLiberal]

45. We can debate how many feel this way ...

but Obama's race is definitely an issue with some liberals.

Heck, I've seen a few DUers basically say that Obama's nomination was an affimative action selection.


And if that belief is out there in a place as progressive as DU, imagine how the president is viewed by SOME/MANY liberals in the "real world?"


Just something to consider....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

54. He never "sold himself" as a liberal, and I'm tired of hearing this lie! Read his books.

Look at his record in IL and the U.S. Senate.

YOU and many liberals projected onto him what YOU wanted him to be. And maybe that's the problem. Some of it may be a subtle form of racism. But perhaps much more of the disappointment can be explained by the fact that too many people projected themselves and their entire dreams onto one man.

I don't recall him ever telling us that "HE IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!" NO! He said that it is *WE*, not *HE*.

Will you do your part? Because that's the problem with us liberals. We're sitting back waiting on some God-like figure to accomplish everything in a short two- or three-year period. What have WE done to help move the agenda forward?

[Mr Deltoid]

72. He sold himself as a Democrat, did he not?

[drm604]

4. Who exactly will they abandon him for?

Are "white liberals" going to vote for one of the stellar offerings being put forth by the Republicans? Are they going to just stay home and risk the Republicans taking back the Presidency? A lot of people on the left may be disappointed in the President in some ways but they are not going to abandon him in the face of the alternatives.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Well, of course she doesn't "see it".

:rofl:

[EffieBlack]

6. Exactly

Another embodiment of the privilege. Certain people feel perfectly entitled to point fingers at others and to pronounce them to be less than open-minded on a broad range of issues. But no one else had better do the same to them - because it is THEY who are the arbiters of the motivations and behaviors of everyone, including themselves.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Perfectly stated. I think this is a long overdue discussion, and I think Joan...

is a perfect person to have a one-on-one with Dr. Harris-Perry. They are both bright, intelligent, accomplished women who can probably reach a meaningful concensus. That, notwithstanding, Joan is just flat wrong on this. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm still trying to figure out why anyone who calls themselves a liberal or a progressive

would be abandoning Pres. Obama. :shrug:

That would be like someone putting a plastic bag over their head
cause they were feeling like they couldn't breathe due to some
30 years of smog.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Can you think of a modern president of whom more was expected?

Michael Moore said: "I thought I voted for a black guy"

Bill Maher said: "I want a lot more John Shaft, and a lot less Steve Urkel"

Ralph Nader said: "Uncle Tom"


They don't see it, but all these things collectively form a very nasty picture. People who thought they were free thinking, and progressive minded, have fallen into stereotypical language that they deem "harmless". But it speaks to much deeper, and long held biases, that they themselves don't even recognize. I cringed when I heard these utterances.

Whether they'll admit it or not, a lot of white liberals voted for a stereotype, and since this president doesn't fit neatly into their preconceived notions of who we are, they are "deeply disappointed". Well, I'm "deeply disappointed" as well, but it's not in the President. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

11. I had discussed this with poster Peacetrain at another site.....

She no longer posts here, but she gave me permission to use her words
if I felt like it....

She wrote....

As women, we have said time and time again, and it is true.. we have to do everything better than men do, do it backwards and in heels..

Gays in the service have had to be bolder in combat, because no matter how strong they are.. the prejudices creep back in.

And Prof Perry, is absolutely right.. President Obama has to do it better and on steroids.

Why.. because prejudice is in EVERYONE.. and those who refuse to acknowledge that they have to fight against that..are the ones you need to keep an eye out for.. Anyone can be prejudiced.. anyone.

More is asked of this President.. he is put to a much higher standard. It is the mantle the "firsts" in any thing always have to bear.

His accomplishments will be diminished by his peers, because there is no way he can be that perfect person they expected in their fantasies.

History will be kind to President Obama.. But those of us who live through this with him, will take it to the grave. Just as those who lived through nameless African Americans who risked their lives to take a drink at a water fountain, are now lost to memory or sometimes even denigrated because they did not stand up as someone could today. But those of us who lived through that bravery of the man who took the drink at the fountain..know who is brave and who stands on that mans bravery to sell his pizza and not acknowledge who got him there.

Those who stood by as women were force fed in prisons at the turn of the last century because they marched for the vote.. they are forgotten by us, but not by those who lived it with them.. They were the brave, we are the lucky women who stand on their shoulders.

I could go on and on, from Native Americans to Shanty Irish to every group that had to claw its way.

The liberals that Prof. Perry speaks of, will deny deny deny yet know in their hearts, what Prof. Perry speaks of is true. They are liberals for a reason. But that does not make them perfect people.

The cock will crow three times.. and even Peter will deny. We are all too human.

---------------
It's really not that complicated. :shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. That was excellent, and spot on! I miss Peactrain.

:applause:
Hopefully, as a result of Dr. Harris-Perry's piece, there will be some serious soul searching and not just the reflexive naysaying & squawking we've seen here & throughout the leftosphere.

[These Eyes]

14. You make excellent points...

Because he doesn't live up to their stereotype, they then label him as weak, spineless, ineffective, ect., etc. Anytime someone says they don't see color sends up a red flag for me.

[Whisp]

22. me too. everyone sees colour and difference, and everyone has prejudice

we are born without it, but are trained from our parents and society to have it, and it is a prejudiced world.

so yes, anyone who says I'M NOT, has some mirror looking to do

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. The saddest aspect to this is that it gives credence to what Rush Limbaugh once stated...

That white liberals voted for Obama out of sympathy and guilt.

I was shocked at Michael Moore, not so much at Bill Maher or Nader. Bill lives for stereotyping blacks. And Nader? No matter how you cut it, he's still been exposed to generations of race discussions such as this. He ought to know better.

Joan Walsh, to me, represents the worst in white liberalism: the notion that only white people know what's best for black people. This projected "self pity" onto blacks; that we've had it so hard, but that white people can turn that around. But when whites are disappointed, they blame the blacks for not doing it "their way." It's a patronizing approach to how they treat and view blacks. Hence, many of us very leery and untrustworthy of white liberals.

During the primaries, when Hillary insinuated that it took LBJ to move civil rights agenda forward, implying that all MLK did was "make pretty speeches," she knew exactly what she was doing.

When I hear white liberals exclaim that the blacks should be grateful to white leaders like LBJ and Clinton because "they did so much for you people," again, it's patronizing and also demoralizing to black people, not to mention, offensive.

Some of this is subtle. They don't realize how patronizing they are. Most of it is deliberate.

I'm giving Joan Walsh the benefit of the doubt. She has gotten into online scuffles with folks when discussing race before. She and MHP are good friends. I'm happy that they are having this dialogue. It reminds me of the days when I was still fond of Cornel West, his on-going discussions with liberal Jews to help heal wounds between blacks and Jews.

[Empowerer]

61. I agree with your point

I do believe that some white liberals voted for President Obama because they wanted to be the kind of people they thought they were. That's not a bad thing - Barack Obama appealed to their better natures and they strived to be who they wanted to be.

But once he was in office, some of these people got frustrated when he didn't do things the way they wanted him to - often because they projected certain expectations onto him based upon their notions of what kind of president a black man would be. And when he didn't meet those expectations, they got mad. And in getting mad, they revealed some of their hidden biases and sense of white privilege. THEY get to tell him what he's doing wrong, but he'd better not push back. THEY get to tell the rest of us whether racism, prejudice or bias are an issue anywhere in the political discussions. If THEY don't think they are, anyone else who does is a racist who PLAYS THE RACE CARD. THEY get to decide the time, place and manner of any discussions about race and any discussion that doesn't fall within their parameters are off-limits, unhelpful and counterproductive. And on and on.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. I saw the thread you started, and not even 10 posts before someone

completely misinterpreted and/or misread what you wrote.

Until we have an honest dialogue about race in this country, we will never move forward.

Eric Holder was the one who I believe called this country a bunch of cowards because we refuse to discuss race in a constructive, honest way. Until we do so, there will never be a complete understanding of race in this country, and we will never be able to move past it. I'm hoping that the younger generations may show us old folk the way, but with all the dishonesty in this country, I don't see how we truly get past this.

Many people thought that if they simply voted for Barack, our race war would be over. Sadly, I think that the election of this president has actually brought both subtle and overt forms of racism to the fore. Unless we deal honestly with it, we'll get nowhere in this country.

[Empowerer]

66. Interesting point about Eric Holder - that further proves the point we're making

When AG Holder said America is a nation of cowards when it comes to race, what was the reaction? Mostly a whole lot of white people - liberal and conservative - went berserk and accused Eric Holder of calling white people cowards. Never mind that he did nothing of the kind. Never mind that he referred to "America" not white people. Never mind that they revealed an interesting mindset - that THEY were the Americans and everyone else was, well, who know what we are, but we're clearly not really Americans.

But, of course, it shut down the discussion but quick.

It was pretty amazing.

And you're right that many people thought that the mere act of electing a black president would mean that racism would end. And whatever vestiges of it that remained were solely the responsibility of the President Obama to take care of. HE should be doing the reaching out and the healing - as long as he doesn't say or do anything that makes white people uncomfortable in any way (as he did in the Skip Gates case). And when he failed to be the kind of civil rights leader they wanted him to be and instead just tried to be president, he's attacked and belittled as weak, caver, etc.

Double standard.

[Chan790]

85. Are you aware...

that some significant (though less than 50%) proportion of those who self-ID as liberals are factually anti-compromise anti-moderates? (I'll admit to being one)

This President was never going to hold on to those voters unless he moved left from where he was on Election Day...he moved right. I think so many of the compromises he makes are lethal to recovery or the continued well-being of the nation that I cannot support him if he will not be a hard-liner at this point. There is too much damage and he's made too much of it himself. It's hard-left or go-home time for Barack Obama.

To be fair, I never supported Bill Clinton either. I like my Democrats liberal and willing to give no quarter to conservatives of any stripe. We haven't had a good Democrat in the White House since before Nixon in my estimation. We haven't had a lot of Democrats worth supporting on the Presidential ticket even.

[ProSense]

9. Here's the problem

From the article:

<...>

In the absence of poll data on white liberal attitudes toward the president, Harris-Perry compares Obama's current approval-rating woes to the resounding reelection of President Bill Clinton in 1996. Despite Clinton's failure to pass healthcare reform, a signature Obama achievement, as well as his not so liberal record on NAFTA, "don't ask, don't tell" and welfare reform, she says, white liberals stuck with Clinton, yet they are threatening to ditch Obama. She concludes: "If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors."

But her Clinton-Obama comparison, while provocative and sometimes interesting, has a lot of practical problems.

It's sad, for many reasons, that we don't have a more recent Democratic president whose support we can examine. But using Clinton means we're reaching back 15 years to his reelection, and 20 years to his first campaign. White liberal leadership, and individual white liberals, have changed dramatically in that span of time. Speaking for the only white liberal whose views I can report unimpeachably, I think about American politics, and Democratic politics, differently than I did two decades ago. (Although I should point out here that I both supported and sharply criticized Clinton throughout his presidency. You can check my Salon archive.)

So it's hard to usefully compare the attitudes of a hard-to-define demographic group -- "white liberals" -- across a span of 20 years, factor in the specific ups and downs of two presidencies, and come to any fair political conclusions. It's especially hard given the enormous difference in the economy during their two presidencies. Clinton presided over one of the strongest economies in American history; Obama inherited the worst mess since the Great Depression. Clinton probably gets more credit than he deserves for the economy, while Obama gets too much blame. But it's nearly impossible to compare voters' opinions of the two presidents given that stark contrast. With a booming economy, Obama would be riding higher with all voters, of every race.

<...>

There's actually a post at Daily Kos: Are White Liberals Holding President Obama To A Double Standard?

<...>

I can't guess what infamous "white liberals" were thinking but a lot of Democrats were understandably uplifted that Clinton acknowledged this case and the horror of military abuses.

Right after his inauguration, as Clinton prepared to eliminate the ban on homosexuals in the military, Congress protested and, led by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn and General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, dramatically threatened to double down - either Powell's very conservative compromise or they will strengthen the ban.

<...>

President Obama accomplished what Clinton tried and failed to do. DADT, billed as a compassionate incremental step forward, was hardly better, and now finally it is gone. That's a good thing. But, double standard? Without some unexpected further explanation, history doesn't support that argument.

See that's an excuse.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, let me cite two comments, this response:

I dont think he is held to a different standard

I think what she notes, is just the general pessimism that drives liberal voters.

There are no doubt many legitimate criticisms of Obama, but if there is a feeling that he doesnt get credit for some of the good things has done, I dont think you can point to race as the reason for that. I think it's just more the nature of liberals to always be angry and outraged about what hasnt been done yet.

On gay rights, for example, Obama got trashed for not getting DADT repealed quicker, got little to no credit when it happened, and now I see liberals OUTRAGED that he doesnt support marriage equality(a position he held on the campaign trail). Whatever Obama does, it's never going to be enough for many in the liberal base, not because he is black, but because I think liberal mind is always looking at what hasnt been done, what needs to be done, etc, and defining a president by that, and not their accomplishments.

Here's another comment

only the white liberals who pine for Clinton

as if he was more progressive.

I laugh in anticipation of some of you telling me such people don't exist, when I've argued with people on here for two years who say exactly that.

meanwhile progressives need to learn the difference between "secretly racist" and "unconsciously bigoted"

we've ALL got some unconscious bigotry. stop trying to pretend you don't. that's to all and sundry.

It happens all over the Internet and in the MSM, people pining away for Clinton and begging Hillary to run. Many of these are critics who attacks Obama for not being progressive. They attack him from the left.

Then there is using Clinton's economy to criticize Obama.

Case in point this article by Robert Kuttner: Black and Bleak

What a terrible irony this Labor Day that under America's first African-American president, black unemployment has risen to its highest level since the early Reagan years, and decades of black progress on homeownership have been wiped out.

<...>

A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats, but African-Americans made great economic progress in the late 1990s, when overall unemployment was low. In those years, the black-white wage gap and unemployment gap narrowed. Full employment and tight labor markets are always good medicine.

Bill Clinton was facetiously said to be the first black president, not just because of his comfort level with the black community and his appointment of African Americans to senior positions, but because of this very real material progress -- now largely reversed.

<...>

The problem is less Obama's failure to target black unemployment per se than his weakness on the jobs issue generally. Race comes into the equation because of an almost pathological aversion to conflict on Obama's part, which has been widely attributed to his wish to bridge racial and ideological gaps.

<...>

The President's race has nothing to do with African American unemployment. Kuttner credits Clinton for "very real material progress" for African Americans, and blames Obama for a situation that is a direct result of Clinton's deregulation policies.

The economic climate comparisons are apples and oranges, as even Clinton himself will admit.

Polls:

President Obama's support is now above 50 percent among all but whites, whose approval is more than 20 percent lower than the other groups.

Gallup, Sept 12 - 18: Obama's approval climbs 6 percent among Hispanics

Gallup (previous week)

Male: 36% (41%)

Female: 43% (45%)

White: 31% (35%)

Nonwhite: 65% (63%)

Black: 82% (86%)

Hispanic 53% (47%)


November 2009: Obama's Approval Slide Finds Whites Down to 39%

<...>

It is important to note that this pattern is not unique to Obama. For example, Bill Clinton averaged 55% job approval during his presidency, including 52% among whites but a much higher 76% among nonwhites and 82% among blacks.

<...>

That average is 21 points higher than Obama's current approval for that group.


Now to Walsh's point:

"Speaking for the only white liberal whose views I can report unimpeachably, I think about American politics, and Democratic politics, differently than I did two decades ago. (Although I should point out here that I both supported and sharply criticized Clinton throughout his presidency. You can check my Salon archive.)... But it's nearly impossible to compare voters' opinions of the two presidents given that stark contrast. With a booming economy, Obama would be riding higher with all voters, of every race."

The point is not that people were critical of Clinton at the time, it's that some of Obama's current critics are all too willing to excuse away Clinton's actions, including his policy failures, while harshly criticizing Obama, who has in many cases reversed or moved away from some of those policies.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. Clinton himself admitted that he deregulated too much and apologized.

Every single person here at DU should know this. But many dismiss that face that these very deregulatory policies, among them Glass-Stegall, has had a devastating impact on black communities of ALL incomes. The fact that anyone can fix their mouths to blame Obama is laughable at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

[xchrom]

12. Using the word 'racism' is an important tool for moderates

& loyalists.

You don't or even can't prove any of it - but it can shut people up.

Not at all unlike McCarthy.

[Mr Deltoid]

15. It's stupid, if anything

IMHO

[ProSense]

16. Hmmm?

"Using the word 'racism' is an important tool for moderates & loyalists.

You don't or even can't prove any of it - but it can shut people up.

Not at all unlike McCarthy."


So anyone who uses the word "racism" is a "moderate & loyalists"?

Seems to me people who are strong Clinton supporters are "moderate & loyalists."

Speaking of "McCarthy," are you saying that unless one can prove racism, it doesn't exist and shouldn't be discussed.

[These Eyes]

17. Are you saying racism doesn't exist?

Or are you saying that racism doesn't exist among liberals?

[xchrom]

18. Why would I say that?

But in the liberal community - there is hardly a more serious accusation.

[FrenchieCat]

19. What about Sexism and Homophobia?

Are those present in the Liberal community?

[These Eyes]

20. All the more reason to have open and honest discussion about it.

[Mr Deltoid]

21. It's a stupid accusation (racism)

Circular firing squad on steroids. It can only harm Obama, IMHO.

[These Eyes]

23. So, that would suggest that Liberals are perfect.

That they have somehow transcended human frailty. Truth may hurt some feelings, but it won't hurt the president.

[Mr Deltoid]

26. Im saying

Accusations of racism against Democrats by other Democrats at this point in time are stupid and ultimately harm Obama.

[ProSense]

31. And

"Accusations of racism against Democrats by other Democrats at this point in time are stupid and ultimately harm Obama."

...I'm saying that I don't buy your characterization of the debate.

The point is that there is a real double standard being employed. Maybe calling it out is just what's needed to make people aware of it. The constant attempts to portray the President as subservient and weak, and subtle comparisons that imply that he's a lesser President than Clinton is not good for his campaign either.

[Mr Deltoid]

33. I will repeat it then

Accusations of racism by Obama supporters against other Democrats ultimately harms Obama.

[ProSense]

36. Actually

"Accusations of racism by Obama supporters against other Democrats ultimately harms Obama."

...it interesting that you put it that way! Very telling.

[Mr Deltoid]

41. Indeed

It illistrates my opinion on thee matter perfectly. That's why I said it.

Do you believe they help Obama with these accusations of racism against Democrats?

-edited to add Smiley :-)

[ProSense]

52. Hmmm?

"Do you believe they help Obama with these accusations of racism against Democrats?"

You know what I see: a lot of bullshit being hurled at this President from every side.

Here's some anecdotal evidence, this diary at Daily Kos: How Can We Recover from Obama?

How can we ever recovery from the disaster that is Obama? It is clear now that the Obama Presidency is a mitigated catastrophic failure, but a catastrophic failure nonetheless. A Presidency characterized by lack of vision, lack of connection with the populist feeling of the day, and of a status quo nature at a time when the status quo is collapsing in the most dramatic fashion, the most dramatic fashion in generations. As such, it is as bad as Jimmy Carter, if not worse.

It is made all the worse by the high hopes deliberately fed by Obama's ascendancy, the fact tha Obama is the first African-American President and multiracial President. It is made worse by the fact that Obama promised the Democrats the hearts of a generation, that was willing to listen to him, now turned into the 'Lost Generation'.

<...>

Translation: He's a "mitigated catastrophic failure" because we expected more from a black man.

This from Walsh's piece also merits attention:

The difference between Clinton's booming economy and today's broken one creates political problems for Obama in another way: He was largely elected due to Americans' fears that we were headed into an abyss, and their faith that he would bring the economic change he promised. Like a pilot taking over with a plane in a nose dive, Obama kept the economy from crashing, but he hasn't lifted it into smooth skies. Maybe it makes me an unrealistic and entitled white progressive -- that's pretty much what black author Ishmael Reed called Obama's white critics -- but I think it's clear that even with a recalcitrant Congress, the president could have done more than he did to dismantle the rigged system that let Wall Street destroy the economy, as well as more to help its casualties.

<...>

Walsh's piece is an attempt to rebut Melissa Harris-Perry's commentary of a double standard. Here, she's basically saying that Obama should have accomplished more with a Congressional majority similar to Clinton's, who failed to accomplish much in his first two years.

Filibusters

111th Congess (2009-2010) - 136

103rd Congress (1993-1994) - 80

To Perry's point:

The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

Today, America’s continuing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan provoke anger, but while Clinton reduced defense spending, covert military operations were standard practice during his administration. In terms of criminal justice, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased judicial disparities in punishment; by contrast, federal incarceration grew exponentially under Clinton. Many argue that Obama is an ineffective leader, but the legislative record for his first two years outpaces Clinton’s first two years. Both men came into power with a Democratically controlled Congress, but both saw a sharp decline in their ability to pass their own legislative agendas once GOP majorities took over one or both chambers.

Yet Obama is the failure?

Now let me quote Clinton on the economy, from this piece:

<...>

Voters may not care, but it’s worth pointing out the truth from time to time anyway. As Bill Clinton explained on “Meet the Press” last weekend, “First of all, he became president just a few months after the financial crash. Now, keep in mind, even before the financial crash, in the eight years before the financial crash, we had almost no new jobs. Only 10% as many as we had when I was president. Real family income was lower than it was the day I left office. The economy was weak as could be. Then you had this financial crash. Historically these things take five years to get over…. The American people are not used to waiting five years for anything good to happen, but that’s what we’re facing. And if you want to speed it up, we got to do things in the government.”

[Mr Deltoid]

70. Your convoluted answer to my yes or no question

..tells me that you dont want to answer the question.

[ProSense]

77. Hmmm?

"Your convoluted answer to my yes or no question"

Hmmm?

Don't like the answer, feel free to ask it again.

[ProSense]

24. That's

"Circular firing squad on steroids. It can only harm Obama, IMHO."

...funny!

The constant screaming that the President is a failure, weak, sellout and in over his head, and calls to primary him or for him to step down are less harmful?

[Mr Deltoid]

27. Is it a contest to out stupid each other?

Seems like it sometimes

[ProSense]

29. Hmmm?

"Is it a contest to out stupid each other?"

Couldn't think of a rebuttal to the point?

[Mr Deltoid]

32. Rebuttle?

Isn't it obvious?

:-) :-)

[Supersedeas]

92. or just a rhetorical device in certain situations

[jaxx]

37. That's an interesting comment.

Since nothing can be proven, then nobody should be worried about comments that could be hurtful to some. Do I have that correct, as to what you meant? That no matter the word used, in whatever group being discussed, it's all done to shut people up? Like McCarthy did? To make sure.....you do mean this against any group? Any hurtful word?

[Number23]

30. I was just about to rec this until I read your comments in the thread

I appreciate Walsh's attempts to intelligently discuss this. She could have screamed "STOP CALLING ME A RACIST!!" the way so many others have, but she didn't. And while it is certainly no surprise that a white liberal doesn't see racism amongst other white liberals, I still appreciated the respect she gave to Harris Perry's piece and thought this was intelligent and well-written.

As for your and a few others' claims that racism doesn't exist and particularly not from liberals, it's funny that so many other -isms exist in the liberal sphere. All but this one in the minds of some. A country built on the shoulders of white supremacy and privilege has suddenly cleansed itself of this ill. Who the fuck knew??

[Mr Deltoid]

34. Judging by your comments in similar threads...

I highly doubt it

:-) :-) :-)

[Number23]

86. Well since you put it that way

Happy to unrec. :)

I hadn't done either until I saw your nasty little response here. You don't know me or anything about me.

[MrSlayer]

38. Not this white liberal.

The President has, in my opinion, been disappointing. However, the idea of abandoning the country to the psycho right wing is completely unacceptable.

[provis99]

39. if whites hold black politicians to a higher standard..

doesn't that in fact reflect racism aimed at white candidates, rather than black candidates? If racism means holding one race to be better than another, it seems to me that having low expectations for a white politician is indicative of white liberal racism against whites, not against blacks.

I think Harris-Perry got her conclusion 180 degrees backwards.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. This.

Liberals had expectations of Obama that were based on things other than his record and his speeches.

[shotten99]

40. For whom?!

[trueblue2007]

42. NO WE R NOT ABANDONING OUR PRESIDENT. what a dumb article

[Democracyinkind]

43. I do hold President Obama to a higher standard.

Then again, I like to think that it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Any "democratic" (whatever that means these days, I seem to no longer get it) president elected in 2008 must be held to higher standards than the previous presidents. Have we forgotten the last 8 years? The dem pres elected in 2008 HAS to be better, stronger and more effective than previous dem presidents because this country has taken such a drastic turn to the right in the last decade. Another Clinton just won't do. This has nothing to do with race. It might be that I'm not smart enough or that I didn't pay enough attention in 2008 but honestly, I had the impression that Obama was offering to be that kind of president. And I can't be accused of being part of the pony brigade, because aside from a repeal of DADT (for which I am forever grateful to Obama) I had no specific policies in mind that I expected from him. Appointing Summers and Geithner and being advised by the same old board of those corrupt bought-off-by-Wall-Street "economists" did tell me very early on that expecting "more" from this president was uncalled for. This might sound quite specific, contradicting what I wrote a bit above, but I did expect more than just reappointing the sorry excuses for "economists" who created this mess. There's a real double standard here, admitted, but I refuse to believe that this is the subconscious racist lingering in Democracyinkind's mind. I really do believe that the double standard to which I hold President Obama has to do with contingent historical facts that arguably make this presidential term the most important of the first half of the 21st century.

edited for grammar.

[newfie11]

44. I don't think so

There is no other choice and not voting is not a choice. I have been more than pissed at Obama, especially his offers to tinker with SS, medicare, medicaid. I am delighted to see a change in him now but wonder if it is all election talk. In any case I will vote for him. If any of the psychotics get elected I am afraid that will finish off what was a great country. God help us if repugs get to put 2 more repugs on the Supreme Court.

[ellisonz]

46. Just stirring up the same old shit from the 2008 primaries...

[MadHound]

47. Are Obama supporters coming up with a new meme?

That white liberals are racist if they dare to criticize the president.

[paulk]

56. there is nothing "new" about it

it was used all through the primaries. There is nothing a certain subset of white liberal hates more than being called a "racist". IMHO many of these "white liberals" supported Obama because of his skin color, if only to prove they weren't racist. My worry is that this ploy will hurt Obama in 2012. The story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. No matter how disappointing Obama has been, should he be the nominee we must support him - the country cannot afford giving the executive branch to the republicans.

[ProSense]

62. Interesting

"IMHO many of these 'white liberals' supported Obama because of his skin color, if only to prove they weren't racist."

So he won because he's black? WTF?

[paulk]

67. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

yes, I believe that he gained a lot of support among white liberals during the primaries, not because of his policies or politics, but because his campaign played the race card...

I mean, What the fuck????

Someone has a different opinion than you of how things went down! We can't all be comfortable in our sycophancy. It worries me that continuing to play the same hand will hurt him in the 2012 election.

[ProSense]

68. Oh

"yes, I believe that he gained a lot of support among white liberals during the primaries, not because of his policies or politics, but because his campaign played the race card..."

...he won, get over it!

[paulk]

81. wait

I understand that you're not really interested in any sort of true discussion, but can't you at least come up with some new cliches?

[BiggJawn]

48. So disappointment is now called "abandonment"?

And it's not because we're disappointed that the president is further to the Right than we had hoped, it's because he's... Gasp!... Black!

I call bullshit.

look, if I had wanted Evan Bayh for President, I would have worked to get Evan Bayh to run for President.

Not to worry, Barry has my vote, can't shake that.

[Cigar11]

49. If they do ...

they will have no one to blame but themselves because the Tea-Party Conservatives true color is Green. The fumy thing is, unless they are Millionaires or Billionaires, the GOP won't see them.

[treestar]

50. I don't think that has been proven

It's just suggested in the hope of getting people on the bandwagon and making it true by repetition. The media has tried every one of Obama's supporting groups, from women to Hispanics to Jews to African Americans.

But I do think Obama is being held to a higher standard as an AA person. Likely this would have happened to Hillary too, as a woman.

[boomerbust]

51. Will I vote for Obama in 2012?

Probably. Will I be fired up and ready to go? Probably not.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. Many white liberals insist that they can't be racist, or sexist, or homophobic

or exhibit ANY of the insidious phobias because, well, they're liberals. It is untrue. It is offensive. And to assert the contrary implies that liberals are somehow above moral reproach.

And yet, many of us witnessed this "insidious" form of racism--some of it very subtle, some of it explicit--during the 2008 Democratic primaries. We also witnessed some sexism. And yes, I am amazed at the homophobia that exists in the liberal community, even here on DU.

Joan Walsh is wrong. It may not be the kind of racism where someone gets called the N-Word. No, it may not be explicit.

However, I stand with Professor Melissa Harris Perry's contention that the double standards and "moving of the goal posts" lead to only one explanation. Again, it may not be *explicit* or overt racism, but I do believe that there is a psychological, more subtle racism.

[Empowerer]

55. You're exactly right

One of the problems, I believe, is that many people use the term "racism" to describe every form of bias. Racism/racist is such a loaded term and, in my view, has a very specific meaning that does not accurately describe most forms of bias and prejudice.

We are all prejudiced. We are all biased. We are not all racist.

Unfortunately, the minute anyone points out bias, we are usually blown back with the "STOP CALLING ME A RACIST" attack and the conversation usually falls apart from there.

Pointing out bias or prejudice is not the same as calling someone a racist. And the hyper-sensitivity to even considering the possibility that someone may be biased or prejudiced, even unconsciously and without malice, has caused this issue to remain unexamined and unresolved. It's very unfortunate.

[laugle]

95. Excellent analysis!

You are correct, we all have prejudice and bias. This does not mean we are racist. The real racists' are the Klan and other white supremacist's groups who need an avenue for their hate, and see people as a group rather than individuals...

[Jakes Progress]

63. Closet sexists.

Some supported Obama over Hillary in the primary. Must be sexists.

They supported a man over a woman. Hmmm. Perhaps they are unaware of their deep-seated sexism.

Hmm. Now many of them condemn the writings of the woman Joan Walsh. I mean. How obvious could it get? Many of us witnessed this "insidious" form of sexism--some of it very subtle, some of it explicit--during the 2008 Democratic primaries. And yes, I am amazed at the desperation that exists in the liberal community, even here on DU.

It may not be explicit. They may not use the B word. But I stand with celebrated reporter Joan Walsh and her contention that using racism as a screen is a stupid and insulting way to defend programs that the defenders can't defend.

Is there racism in the world. Yep.
Is there sexism. Yep.
Is there homophobia. Yep.

Is the reason that liberal and progressives are trending toward non-support for Obama an example of racism? Utter bullshit.

[ProSense]

65. Hmmmm?

Closet sexists. They supported a man over a woman. Hmmm. Perhaps they are unaware of their deep-seated sexism.

Hmm. Now many of them condemn the writings of the woman Joan Walsh. I mean. How obvious could it get? Many of us witnessed this "insidious" form of sexism--some of it very subtle, some of it explicit--during the 2008 Democratic primaries. And yes, I am amazed at the desperation that exists in the liberal community, even here on DU.

It may not be explicit. They may not use the B word. But I stand with celebrated reporter Joan Walsh and her contention that using racism as a screen is a stupid and insulting way to defend programs that the defenders can't defend.

Is there racism in the world. Yep.
Is there sexism. Yep.
Is there homophobia. Yep.

So "insidious" sexism exists among liberals, but bigotry and racism only exist in the world?

[Jakes Progress]

75. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

I was parodying the post above when it used purple prose and breathless hyperbole to decry disagreement with Obama as racist. Surely you don't want to do the same. You knew that, but it wouldn't help your slant to admit it and actually address the points. I notice you used your usual selective quotes to put all the parody in, but left out the part where I called bullshit on using racism to tar decent Duers and progressives as a way of dismissing their legitimate concerns. That might work for you and for the small organization of those who pretend to never see any problems with the administration. It might get you some more credit from whomever you wish to please. But it doesn't do anything to keep Democrats in office. As long as they behave like lite-republican, they will continue to be viewed as not doing the jobs they were elected for. So, go ahead and play games. Go ahead and fulfill whatever tasks of obstruction and misdirection you are given to do. But until the things that you and the small group of deniers keep demeaning and dismissing are addressed, things will continue to go from bad to worse for the administration. I didn't vote for a centrist administration. No one voted for timidity and sell-out. Defending it is a sure course to a republican victory.

[ProSense]

76. Use

I was parodying the post above when it used purple prose and breathless hyperbole to decry disagreement with Obama as racist. Surely you don't want to do the same. You knew that, but it wouldn't help your slant to admit it and actually address the points. I notice you used your usual selective quotes to put all the parody in, but left out the part where I called bullshit on using racism to tar decent Duers and progressives as a way of dismissing their legitimate concerns. That might work for you and for the small organization of those who pretend to never see any problems with the administration. It might get you some more credit from whomever you wish to please. But it doesn't do anything to keep Democrats in office. As long as they behave like lite-republican, they will continue to be viewed as not doing the jobs they were elected for. So, go ahead and play games. Go ahead and fulfill whatever tasks of obstruction and misdirection you are given to do. But until the things that you and the small group of deniers keep demeaning and dismissing are addressed, things will continue to go from bad to worse for the administration. I didn't vote for a centrist administration. No one voted for timidity and sell-out. Defending it is a sure course to a republican victory.

...spacing, it's free!


From your previous comment:

Is there racism in the world. Yep.
Is there sexism. Yep.
Is there homophobia. Yep.

Is the reason that liberal and progressives are trending toward non-support for Obama an example of racism? Utter bullshit.

The point is still bullshit, implying that discrimination exists in the world, but not among liberals.

Again with the straw man bullshit, Perry, nor anyone defending her point, never said that all liberal critics of Obama are employing a double standard. To claim that this debate is an attempt to "racism to tar decent Duers and progressives as a way of dismissing their legitimate concerns" is beyond bullshit!

[Jakes Progress]

89. Misuse.

The point is valid. Your argument is bullshit. It is bullshit because you know that you are making up words for me. Old ploy but still stupid.

I never said discrimination doesn't exist among liberals. I said that the idea that liberals were moving away from Obama because they were racists was bullshit.

How about you actually take a stand without a communique from headquarters. Do you think that DUers who are taking back support for Obama are doing so because they are racist? How about you actually have a position?

Do you think that my distrust and disgust for Obama's motives and actions are because I am a racist?

[Mr Deltoid]

71. Strawman arguement

'white liberals' dont say that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. "Held to a higher standard" What standard is that?

The obvious answer is "the expectations they placed on him in 2008".

There's more than one kind of stereotype. If liberals are guilty of racial stereotyping, it's more likely that it's the kind of stereotyping which caused anti-war activists to support him without any reason other than the superficial to believe that he would end the wars.

Among liberals, he's not a victim of stereotyping. He was a beneficiary of it.

[Ganja Ninja]

78. I suppose his declining support among blacks is race based too.

(Snip)

"A Washington Post-ABC News poll earlier this week showed that 58 percent of blacks held “strongly favorable” views of him, down from 83 percent five months ago. That coincides with a black unemployment rate that has ticked up to close to 16 percent on Obama’s watch."

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Obama+seeks+shore+black+support+jobs+push/5454732/story.html#ixzz1Z4zNtSGW

:eyes:

[ProSense]

79. Hmmmm?

"I suppose his declining support among blacks is race based too."

Where is the data for this poll?

Here's a WaPo article

New cracks have begun to show in President Obama’s support amongst African Americans, who have been his strongest supporters. Five months ago, 83 percent of African Americans held “strongly favorable” views of Obama, but in a new Washington Post-ABC news poll that number has dropped to 58 percent. That drop is similar to slipping support for Obama among all groups.

<...>

The link in the text goes to another article that provides a link to the full poll results, which show no related data.

Gallup has the President's approval among African Americans at 82 percent

[mmonk]

80. Yes, I saw that article as well. Pocketbook issues.

[slay]

82. Cause he abandoned us - and the country - but we seem to be the only ones who've noticed

n/t

[vroomvroom]

84. As a Black Liberal it is NOT a Race Thing...

I am a plastic surgeon and although the economy has not hit me that hard or my practice i am more upset with Obama for not being strong. I voted for him because of his progressive ideals and promises, and all i have been seeing is more republican caving. That is very frustrating. Yes, he is in Campaign Season mode so he is pretending to be a liberal to shore up votes, but i am not being hooked in this time around. I had been thinking what would things have been like if Hilary were there instead of Obama and then i shuttered because she would have been even more in bed with Wall Street than Obama, even as Obama is pretty much married to them.

Honestly, i am having a tough time deciding if i should vote to re-elect but i might have to if the GOP get their act together and force my hand to vote for a man i have little respect for. That is what it has come down to: the lesser of two evils. If polls show Obama has at least a 5-10 point spread in the GE then i might not vote because he will be safe enough to be re-elected without my help, and i can keep my dignity. I would LOVE to see Feingold or Elizabeth Warren primary Obama even if they stand little chance because it would just feel good to vote for someone i do respect.

[polichick]

88. As a white liberal, I totally agree with you...

When an OFA worker called me last week I told him that I'd be voting for the prez as the lesser of two evils but wouldn't be putting in the hundreds of hours of work I put in last time - and the guy actually yelled at me so I hung up. Crazy times.

[babylonsister]

90. I'm a white liberal, and I embrace President Obama as the

smartest man/politician in any room in this country. Given what he's had to contend with, I give him many more props for the balancing act he's had to accomplish, and think he's doing a great job.
So sorry we are so far apart in our opinions.

[fishwax]

87. well, I agree with Walsh on the second point

I, too, "expect Obama's support by all demographic groups to be higher at the ballot box than it is in opinion polls today."

[YellowCosmicSun]

91. Not Liberal Democrats. Maybe the Naderites. Who knows?