The Melissa Harris-Perry article is aimed at shutting down progressive dissent about Obama's record

[Better Believe It]

Racism Isn't Responsible for the President's Drop in Popularity -- His Right-Wing Policies Are
Why White Liberals Are (Really) Ditching Obama
by David Sirota
September 26, 2011

.... Tulane professor/MSNBC contributor Melissa Harris-Perry, insists that liberals' rising dissatisfaction with President Obama is primarily motivated not by the president's failure to pursue his campaign promises, his aggressive embrace of Bush policies he promised to oppose, his inexplicable fealty to the recession-creating oligarchs on Wall Street, or even the recession itself. Instead, the argument goes that, despite all these factors (factors which depressed enthusiasm in the past for white presidential candidates), and despite white liberals voting in droves for Obama in 2008, this progressive dissatisfaction is motivated by racism.

By seeing this record and then explaining away declining liberal support for President Obama as a product of bigotry, Harris-Perry exhibits the ultimate form of both denialism and elitism. It assumes voters (and readers of The Nation) are all lockstep partisans who don't -- and shouldn't -- care about actual issues, public policies and governmental actions, and that they should instead just line up with their party's leaders without question. It further assumes -- without any factual evidence -- that if and when voters don't follow this partisan script, it means that some deeper psychological factor like racism (rather than, say, rational, considered analysis of public policy) is the primary motivating factor in their behavior.

As I noted earlier, there's lots of racism in America, and yes, some of it has come from self-described liberals (see, as just two representative examples, Geraldine Ferraro's hideous comments about Obama and Time magazine's Joe Klein's grotesque column on Rep. John Conyers). And that's obviously a real problem. But it doesn't justify a public figure circumventing hugely important facts and suggesting that all -- or even most -- progressive dissatisfaction with President Obama is somehow proof that white liberals (who helped elect Obama to office) have allowed racism to dictate their political reactions. In fact, using such overly broad rhetoric to ignore legitimate, fact-based progressive dissent -- and doing so in a liberal magazine like the Nation without marshaling a single empirical fact to support the accusation -- does great harm to the cause of racial equality.

In this case, Harris-Perry, a longtime lockstep Obama defender, is making the argument in order to contribute to a broader campaign aimed at shutting down principled progressive dissent about this White House's record. Whether her jeremiad and others like it are aimed at pre-emptively preventing a Democratic presidential primary, or simply aimed at strengthening overall liberal support for Obama in the general election, such denialism tries to fabricate an equivalency between ugly race-motivated opposition to President Obama from the white-supremacist far right, and principled -- and perfectly rational -- opposition to him from the left. It aims .... to discredit substantive progressive questions about the gap between Obama's rhetoric and his actions in advance of the 2012 campaign.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/26-11


-------------------------------------------

Are white liberals abandoning the president?
A Nation writer worries that an "insidious form of racism" explains their criticism of Obama. I don't see evidence
By Joan Walsh
September 25, 2011

As long as we're looking at the president's racial support, let's look broadly. While white liberal support for Obama has almost certainly dropped, so has his support within every group. Why are Latinos abandoning Obama? Two thirds of Latinos voted for the president in 2008; the Gallup tracking poll showed Latino support dropping to 44% at the end of August, though it jumped up above 50 percent this week. Overall, the president is polling in the 40s among Latinos since the end of June. And while black support remains strong, it's declined, too. Obama won 95 percent of black voters in 2008, and his approval rating hovered in the 90s for most of his first two years. This week, it's at 82 percent, and it's been steadily in the 80s since February. That's still high, but it's not the enthusiastic, near-unanimous support that elected him.

The president himself acknowledged the rising volume of African American discontent in his speech to the (increasingly critical) Congressional Black Caucus Saturday night. The economy in particular, he said, "gets folks discouraged. I know. I listen to some of y'all." Then he delivered a scolding: "Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."

We could probably find racial crosscurrents beneath every group's disappointment with the president, even the CBC's. The legacy of racism, and the historic developmental path of African-American leadership, factor into black politicians' complex responses to the first black president. How could it not? But it's easier, and in my opinion more productive, to identify the practical reasons for discontent among the president's multiracial base – most of which, it must be said again, still supports Obama. The most frequently stated reason for liberal disappointment is his failure to push more aggressively for solutions to our economic disaster, and particularly for jobs. I would argue that had Obama delivered his September jobs speech, and his jobs legislation, two years ago, and fought for it passionately, his standing with all subgroups within his base would be higher.

Finally: Looking for racial motives to explain white liberal disappointment with Obama, in the face of so many economic reasons, seems unnecessarily divisive. It's hard not to notice that despite our admirable 40-year crusade to purge racism, overt and unconscious, from Democratic politics, most Americans, of every race, have grown worse off – and meanwhile, the same proportion of African Americans live in poverty as when Dr. King tried to launch a Poor People's Campaign. As progressives have focused on the real and corrosive legacy of racism against minorities, one American minority has done very well, and that's the richest one percent, who now earn a quarter of the nation's income, up from 8 percent under Jimmy Carter.

Read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html

[villager]

1. the original hit piece definitely seemed very disinformation-y....

n/t

[ProSense]

2. I think David Sirota

is full of shit! From his piece.

Taken together, we see that Obama -- as opposed to Clinton, who at least paid (often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism -- has proudly and publicly stomped on the very progressive promises that got him elected.

Got that: Clinton's empty rhetoric was special and deserving of some praise, but Obama, who has achieved much of what he promised, is different and deserves to be roundly criticized, even rejected, because he didn't pay "(often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism."

[villager]

3. This was a more crucial excerpt: "to ignore legitimate, fact-based progressive dissent --

-- and doing so in a liberal magazine like the Nation without marshaling a single empirical fact to support the accusation..."

[otohara]

5. Three Hours Every Morning - David Sirtoa

complains about President Obama - wants a primary challenge so President Perry is guaranteed.

[Better Believe It]

10. Do you have any evidence and credible links to back up your claim?

Or is that just empty election political rhetoric?

[otohara]

29. Well I Live In Denver

and I listen to the station, use to work in Denver radio. For months, Sirota would tell his listeners to basically fuck off if we didn't like his constant bashing of President Obama. Seriously, he'd get all pissed off, because listeners would PM him about the bashing and he'd go off and and start yelling - turn me off, go listen to some other station. If you want someone to kiss his ass all the time, I'm not your guy.

If someone tells you to fuck off everyday, you eventually fuck off and turn off the hate. Us liberals don't like hate radio and yelling, would you not agree?

I wrote the program director with my fuck off theory and after a couple months of not listening, we turned back to see if it was safe. He no longer tells his listeners to fuck off, and he's added more local stuff. But this AM, he was talking primary challenge again - cuz, that will go over well, especially with African American's. I don't care how unhappy AA's are with the first black president, but they aren't going to abandon him in droves like everyone is predicting.

So, I wish I could provide a link - but I guess the evidence is in the slippage in their overall ratings.

Oh and our Gov and Sen. Bennet refuse to go on his show - don't know if Udall has. Only Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter will go on his show. Sometimes "heck of a job Brownie" is on, cuz he works at the same cluster of Clear Channel stations. When that happens, we turn him off. I could care less what the man who was responsible for American's dying in NOLA has to say, but Sirota does, even jokes around with him. It's cringe worthy.

If you want, you too can listen to DS every M-F - tune in tomorrow when President Obama comes to Denver - he'll be fired up for sure - listeners PM him and complain that he's driving down the President's numbers. He's not alone, everyone who has a microphone, blog, poster, pundit dumps on the prez.

Or, you can not believe me - and that's okay!

[donheld]

33. David also like to call anybody who disagreed with him on this Sycophants

I heard this many times. I stopped listening to him so I don't know if he still does.

[otohara]

36. Thank You

seriously, who needs to listen to this shit when we have so many fine NPR type stations in Colorado and the Internet, and IHeartRadio.

The liberal brain isn't the same as the nuts who listen to Limbaugh.

[kaiden]

128. David Sirota would bitch about an orgasm.

We can't listen to him on our commute anymore. We've switched to 98.5 KYGO, the country music station. We're in much better spirits when we arrive at work. And we never even LIKED country music until David Sirota!

[yardwork]

7. Obama has not "achieved much of what he promised." That's the problem.

Obama was elected - with a great deal of white liberal support - because he promised to roll back the worst aspects of the w. administration. Specifically, Obama promised that we would stop torturing, that we would close Gitmo and secret prisons where people are held in violation of constitutional rights, that we would repeal the Patriot Acts that include unconstitutional assaults on rights including warrantless wiretapping, that we would take back the U.S. economy from the criminals, that we would quickly end the wars, that we would prosecute people who had done wrong, and so forth. These were very specific promises, and Obama has not only not followed through on them, in many cases he has continued the Bush administration's policy and even expanded them.

On top of that, Obama has been an incredibly poor steward of the environment. That is an aspect of him that I didn't anticipate. Among us environmentalists, Obama's record is truly breathtaking in its awfulness and actually compares rather unfavorably with the probable record that McCain would have by now (not that I am defending McCain or would have ever considered voting for him - I'm just mentioning that Obama's environmental record is even worse than McCain's probably would be at this point which provides an illustration of just how stupendously horrific Obama's environmental record actually is).

It's not possible for white liberals to have become more racist in three years. Those who supported Obama in 2008 have not suddenly become racists. Do the math.

edit for typo

[yurbud]

17. what's your evidence for Obama's enviromental record?

[yardwork]

18. His record.

[vaberella]

116. Are we ONLY holding Obama to an environmental record? n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. The problem is that we wanted EVERYTHING done in the first two or three years...

even in the midst of unprecedented Republicans/Blue Dog Democrat obstructionism. Closing Gitmo: It was BLOCKED by the Congress!! Cap n' Trade. Employee Free Choice Act: blocked by Congress!!!

Sirota, as well as many here on DU are so blinded by their hatred and/or disappointment that they are irrational and refuse to consider facts at all.

[yardwork]

123. There is some truth in that, but it leaves out a lot of troubling appointments and actions.

Obama did not have to put Summers, Geithner, etc. in charge of the economy. Again, I reference his environmental record - he did that himself. Most of his cabinet appointments right out of the gate were center-right. Why?

[yurbud]

14. When are you guys going to get that you can't insult people into supporting your candidate?

Calling progressives racists is a new low even for the ''centrist'' Democrats.

[Mr Deltoid]

20. It is stupid

It will cost Obama votes. What the hell are these people thinking?

[CakeGrrl]

72. "These people?" Who are YOU, really?

You realize you're talking about fellow DUers.

Whose votes are you worried about? Are you planning on staying home? Are you REALLY concerned about getting the President back to the WH?

[Fuddnik]

103. No, but you're motivating people to stay home.

Keep insulting those of us who voted for Obama the first time. We'll never vote for a Republican, but keep insulting us, and calling us very offensive names, and we might just stay home.

[CakeGrrl]

107. WHO is calling you 'very offensive names'?

Seriously?

Where do you get this idea?

And maybe you can make yourself feel better that staying home is better than not casting a vote FOR a Republican, but a vote that doesn't go TO the President to counteract a vote FOR the GOP is also a problem.

It's too bad that your right to vote is so contingent on your sensitivity to message board exchanges.

[SidDithers]

122. You'd decide not to vote because of what someone says on the Internet?...

Really?

Sid

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

153. if you won't vote because someone disagrees with you on the internet, you weren't going to vote

anyway. i like this new rallying cry i've seen around here lately "if you don't let us campaign against obama daily and crap on his supporters freely... why... you're a meanie and we won't vote because you hurt our feelings!1!1!11!"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Doc Holliday]

168. I don't understand

why people think that staying home is anything but a vote for the other guy. :wtf:

Oh, sure, the act of not-voting might be intended as a Grand Gesture... but what does it accomplish? Do you think that an imaginary someone will praise your virtue, character and sense of principle, maybe say, "Yep, he stuck to his guns this year...he didn't vote,"? It's not unlike the movie Dodgeball, at the end of which a sportscaster says that the good guys' team may have to forfeit the championship match. His color man chimes in with, "That's a bold strategy...I hope it pays off."

From where I sit, it's only a somewhat Zen-sounding Rush lyric:

"...if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice..." Rush, from Free Will

If I stay home on election day, all that I'm doing is choosing to say, "I don't care. I don't care that my apathetic inaction may elevate someone whom I despise philosophically to a position of great power. I don't care that my voice, no matter how faint, will not be heard. I don't care that, though I live in a country that grants me a say in my destiny as part of my birthright, I'll say nothing, do nothing...and accomplish nothing. I don't care that I won't make a difference in shaping the world I live in." Furthermore, it's an abdication of personal responsibility that is expressly forbidden by the Good Liberal Handbook. :patriot: :hippie: :patriot: :hippie:

You can vote for someone, or you can at least vote against someone. (No shortage of those to choose from!) :puke:

Since the sine qua non for winning any election is getting out your vote, it seems kinda silly to talk about not-voting as if it were a strategy of intimidation. Sort of like threatening yourself with a hunger strike....

....just my opinion, of course..... :rant:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

45. They're in for a rude fucking awakening on November 6, 2012...

if they think this "strategy" is going to appeal to moderates and so-called indies, particularly if the economy is still in the crapper.

[ProSense]

52. Does

"They're in for a rude fucking awakening on November 6, 2012... if they think this "strategy" is going to appeal to moderates and so-called indies, particularly if the economy is still in the crapper."

...this mean you're in for a "rude fucking awakening on November 6, 2012" when Obama wins?

[yurbud]

81. why don't you guys try something constructive like reminding us about potential supreme court picks?

There's a good chance scalia will choke on a canoli or one of the other right wingers will choke on their own bile in the next four years, and Obama will likely appoint someone better than the hard. Right four.

Conversely, if Perry, Mitt, Christie, or some other righty gets in and a lefty on the court dies or retires, they could do damage for decades to come including in a Bush v. Gore decision whenever they feel like it.

That's more persuasive than all of your insults.

[CakeGrrl]

112. Since you're already aware of the SCOTUS implications, there's nothing to tell you.

You're obviously aware that that point has been made.

And where does this "you guys" stuff come from?

The article was written by ONE person, and she does not work for OFA. Where are you getting the idea that this is political strategy?

[yurbud]

127. since the ''blame the base'' talking point is echoed by the White House as recently as the CBC

speech.

[CakeGrrl]

154. That's a bunch of crap. Why does your default position need to be "poor picked-on victim?"

Where is the strength or fight in that?

A lot of people seem to be running around like children who got a talking to by teacher, complete with the same type of resentment.

I listened to the CBC speech. What some of the Left is absolutely unwilling to acknowledge is that some of their positions might be unrealistic to the point of being impossible to actually realize given the realities of the workings of Washington. But if the President asks that someone try to reason with those holding some very entrenched positions, then the battle stations are manned again. "He's lecturing us?" "Where does he get off?" "He's kicking us in the teeth again!"

This is a very strange and somewhat disturbing thing to witness. The level of resentment is disproportionate.

[yurbud]

160. We saw how things can work with remarkable speed in Washington during Bush

which makes it a lot harder to believe in glacial change and that the president can't use the bully pulpit to browbeat those who stand in his way, and get his supporters to do the same.

Obama had a great mandate from voters when he came into office, but diluted it down to nothing by pre-compromising with Republicans and worse, the conservative minority in his own party. Until Democrats lost the House, the only real obstacle to getting more done were conservative Democrats, and a leadership in the Senate that refused to shut down Republican obstruction.

[Empowerer]

156. And the CBC is just too stupid to know they're being blamed . . .

or maybe you're wrong in your characterization of what that speech was all about . . .

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fuddnik]

106. Hopefully, they'll learn some lessons on October 6th, 2011.

We're coming. We ain't leaving.

Deal with it.

[yurbud]

75. yep. the only people impressed by bipartisanship are pols in DC or

Their owners.

I can remember being on the fence, and someone who stands for nothing would not move me one way or the other.

[CakeGrrl]

77. "They"? I assume YOU will be sitting pretty even if the GOP is in the WH, then?

You and everyone else you know will be above it all?

Good on ya.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

85. Tsk, tsk...assumptions with a twist of insults.

Good luck with that strategy.

[CakeGrrl]

87. No strategy needed.

Hopefully those who are capable of comprehending the damage that the GOP will do to this country outnumber those who are more concerned about whether they were made to feel good enough to bother voting. The latter are simply part of the problem given the reality of the GOP barbarians at the gate.

[Union Scribe]

96. You sure do enjoy stuffing words in people's mouths.

I guess everyone needs a hobby.

[CakeGrrl]

111. And apparently your hobby is to go around finger-wagging. In a grumpy mood or something?

What do you care what I said? I'm sure the poster can rebut if they care to.

But since you seem to care so much about this exchange, perhaps you have a theory about how the MHP opinion piece morphed into "political strategy" on the President's behalf for which anyone who's remotely supportive of him is held accountable. Where the hell do these ideas come from?

[Union Scribe]

113. See, you make too many assumptions.

I don't care about your "exchange." As for finger-wagging, I learned it from Melissa Harris-Perry. Wag wag. But I did find this telling:

"for which anyone who's remotely supportive of him is held accountable"

Lol, irony called. It demands you let it rest a bit.

[CakeGrrl]

114. Wrong. It's all based on the bizarre notion that this is all some sort of "campaign strategy".

Every conclusion drawn from it is nonsensical or non-applicable.

MHP has really gotten some backs up. Good.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

73. You said it simply and to the point. It's sad to see this kind of stuff here on DU.

:-(

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

79. "Your candidate?" Who is your candidate? Perry? Romney?

[Vanje]

159. + 1

[FedUp_Queer]

144. That Check Arrived from OFA?

You're such a toady. How's it feel to support a war monger?

[KoKo]

4. I think it's sad that Obama Supporters are trying to play a "Race Card."

Especially since a Candidate with the name of "Barack Hussein Obama" was inaugurated President after the "9/11 Event" that allowed Bushie to retain Presidency for 8 Years.

American People had enough of this CRAP and voted for "CHANGE AND HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.." and this President being an "International" in his upbringing seemed to offer a hope that he would be an "out of the box thinker and doer."


He hasn't exactly performed the way we on the Left who Supported Him heard from him and got guidance from our Liberal Left Websites told us were his Pluses.\

Now we question him...and it turns out that "WE (Activist Dems) ARE TRASHED" more than the REPUG RIGHT WINGERS who've worked against him since BEFORE his ELECTION.

Which Side is Obama On? It's always trashing the Left Dems and not about ever going against the "TeaParty Fanatics" who are Crazies who remind me of what we've seen and read about Hitler's rise to Nazi Germany!"\

[Mr Deltoid]

9. Yep

The racism talk damages Obama in many ways.

[BklnDem75]

89. I think you said that 50 times today

and backed that up 0 times

[tishaLA]

11. to think that the term "race card" is deployed on DU

even in scare quotes, is disheartening.

[ProSense]

15. No

"Especially since a Candidate with the name of 'Barack Hussein Obama' was inaugurated President after the '9/11 Event' that allowed Bushie to retain Presidency for 8 Years."

...this is pathetic. Are you implying Obama's election ended racism?

[Mr Deltoid]

22. What is pathetic

Is the whole 'liberals are racists' meme that Obama's core seem to have latched onto and spin with warped glee.

[ProSense]

23. No,

"Is the whole 'liberals are racists' meme that Obama's core seem to have latched onto and spin with warped glee."

...what's stupid and laughable is listening to a bunch of people who have been yelling, "primary Obama," insulting his supporters and claiming that blacks don't have sense to know whether or not they should support him suddenly making the argument that insulting people will cost votes.

Let me ask, how was a primary challenger going to win insulting the largest group of Democrats, those who support the President?

[Mr Deltoid]

30. There will be no primary challenger, stop attempting to change the subject.

Do you think broad brush accusations of 'racism' against Democrats who are not happy with Obama's policies is a winning strategy??

[ProSense]

39. Maybe

"Do you think broad brush accusations of 'racism' against Democrats who are not happy with Obama's policies is a winning strategy?? "

...you should stop building straw men.

[Mr Deltoid]

97. The fact you refuse to answer the yes or no question...

Leaves me to assume you believe it is a winning strategy.

Good luck with it.

[Number23]

41. Exactly. This "Obama's supporters are hurting my feelings and costing him votes"

is probably the most pathetic argument yet. I hope that people using it think it's some flashy rhetorical point and don't honestly think that way, because if they do, they may not be tough enough and have the strength to make it to the polls anyway.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

54. Niiice...Ann Coulter thinks liberals are wimps, too.

Trust me, MHP and the Blue Link Brigade will have no influence on my vote, but you keep telling yourself that. You can also keep telling yourself that this "strategy" is going to appeal to moderates and so-called indies.

[Number23]

56. Do you have a point? It must be buried underneath the cheese in your word salad

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

76. THIS is the projection that is used by those who claim that criticism of POTUS is being stifled.

Basically, those critics are saying, "Stop calling out the critics (bashers) or else you'll be sorry!"

It's just a way of trying to establish criticism without the annoyance of anyone challenging it.

Ridiculous double standard.

[Bobbie Jo]

98. Don't forget this cogent argument...

"It's stupid."

[Mr Deltoid]

118. Ride that wave to the promised land!

Good luck with it, your gonna need it.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

66. Why do some people have such a chronic problem with overgeneralization and hyperbole?

who EVER said all liberals were racists?

Your overreach is nothing but combative, unproductive, and of course incorrect.

[treestar]

28. Anyone trying to bring up race is said to be "playing the race card"

In a tone showing that's a bad thing - by the right wing. So it is sad to see supposed liberals refusing to deal with the issue and using the right wing "race card" avoidance.

[KoKo]

37. How did Obama get elected if American People were the Racists you think they are?

For Obama Campaign to do this is beyond disgusting. I live in a Red State in the South who voted for Obama! Repugs crossed over along with Indies to vote for Obama.

People were Desperate after the Bush Years! Obama said "Change you Can Believe in!" He was an Internationalist...from Harvard..his mother worked for the Ford Foundation all over the World.

There wasn't any thing about Race in those Dems who voted for him nor the educated Indies and Repugs who crossed over because they were so upset with Bush/Cheney/Rummy's huge Failures and the Wars.

For Obama's Campaign to start pulling "Race Card" makes a mockery of the voters who turned out to vote for Obama who could have stayed home.

It's demoralizing to many of us long time Democrats, too! He needs to tell his Campaign Ops to get off this track...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

42. No, no, no... I've learned from other threads it's because we felt guilt,

sympathy, wanted to be cool voting for the black guy, etc. And they Prove it! with blue links.

I'm not sure if this is a GOTV effort on their parts, but it *truly* is bizarre. They're in for a rude fucking awakening on November 6, 2012 if they think this strategy is going to appeal to moderates and so-called indies.

[KoKo]

44. Agree...it's beyond bizarre for them to think this will "Fire Us Up" to get out the vote.

:crazy:

[treestar]

48. Don't see why you threaten to withhold support

as payback for being asked to consider the issue.

[KoKo]

51. I'm saying the "Race Card" is offensive to us who need to get "Fired Up" and

ready to vote! And, it hurts the downticket in State Elections to start doing this Race Card thing ...particularly in areas of the South who voted for Obama when no one thought they would...like NC where the Dem Convention is going to be held. Pushing race card in places that voted for you in areas where the Tea Party and Religious Right are strong and family and friends are members of both...only hurts our ability to campaign.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

59. Especially in NC, where unemployment is over 10% (again)...

and Koch brothers' money is destroying progressive policy, like the Wake County Public Schools diversity program. Funny how many of us lily-whites are standing with the NAACP in supporting diversity, but God forbid, we criticize Obama and his shit Conservadem policies. What a world.

Obama barely won North Carolina in 2008--people seem to forget that.

[CakeGrrl]

83. Who's "them"?

And who ever claimed that the MHP article had anything to do with campaigning?

If you're not interested in getting out the vote, even if for no other reason than to prevent a takeover by the demented GOP, don't pretend that you'd only be swayed if people were nicer to you on the internet.

:eyes:

[treestar]

46. Voting for him doesn't prove one is never looking at him

through some racial lens - that was the whole point of the column that brought about all of this kerfuffle. He's being held to a higher standard. Maybe it should be discussed. Maybe we are expecting him to do more to prove himself than a white guy would have to. Looking at that issue is worth doing. Not dismissing it with the "race card" nonsense

[KoKo]

62. Okay...let's go with your premise that he's being held to a higher standard..

than a white guy.

So...let's say a "white guy" had won the election and one of his cabinet and his Press Secretary started right off trashing party activists who worked their butts off getting out the vote for this white guy...and they are called "fucking retards" who might be "on drugs" and some other stuff that you know went down (since you are here on DU and saw it all in real time) Say, this white guy Pres dealt with Repugs...bent over backwards to compromise with them...and they still kept trashing him...and the media the Repugs own still kept going after the White Guy President and the Pres...kept trashing the people who voted for him by compromise and compromise and then started telling them they needed he needed to make changes in their "entitlements" (renaming SS which is "defined benefits from what you payed in to retirement in contract with your govenment and employer) after the Banksters on Wall Street crashed the financial system and we (the people) bailed them out...but now we are to give up "pensions and entitlements" because we had to pay so much to bail out Wall Street that there's no money left for anything.

Then (skip over the other stuff we American People are under attack about like jobs, etc) and say this White Guy President goes before his group of White Guy Dem Caucus group and tells them to "stop their whining, get their slippers from under the bed and get up and march...etc., etc. when this group had been doing everything they could to support this President...and they might feel they are being talked down to.

Then, this White Guy President decides that he needs to call out Black and Hispanic Voters because he thinks they don't like him because of the color of his skin. That he maybe didn't do enough for them with immigration or with jobs in Black areas of dying cities that lost jobs overseas due to other Presidents both Dem and Repug...but he decides that it's THEIR FAULT that his Poll Numbers are down and so he sends his Campaign Ops out (or the Campaign Ops go out on their own after focus groups tell them the strategy) and the Campaign ops go all over the internet, TV and Newspapers and start saying that Hispanics, Black People and Immmigrants of different skin colors hate this President because he is WHITE...and that this is the reason his poll numbers are down.

How can this be? Well we've seen "Race Card" played over and over in American Elections. We finally got a President who was a different skin color that ALL WHO VOTED ...decided was the Best Candidate. And, now HE PLAYS THE RACE CARD?

WHY? How can this alienating strategy do anything but pit people against each other and tamp down the voter enthusiasm for him?

I would expect the Tea Party to pull Race Card...they already have...but to have Obama Campaign do this kind of thing is disgusting to this lifelong Democrat who worked and voted for Obama and every other Dem since the late 1960's when I was old enough to vote.

I think Obama should fire his campaign staff if they are into this low level stuff after the incredible upbeat campaign they ran to get Obama elected...even with a middle name like Hussein when "9/11" fever was still at high pitch.

We didn't vote for RACE we VOTED FOR CHANGE WE COULD BELIEVE IN!

My 2 cents worth..as a white liberal Dem voter ...who did vote and donate to Obama and who is active in my local Democratic Party and "high donor to my local candidates, also."

And, a Peace Activist from the 1960's.

[jefferson_dem]

63. Seriously...

Can you make your case without using the disgusting "RACE CARD" lingo? Or perhaps you have no problem joining this shameful lot: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS441US441&q=obama+race+card

[treestar]

151. The white guy simply would not be described that way

"starting off trashing party activists" nothing he said would be twisted to be described that way. Yes I do believe his COS could call anybody's ideas elfin' retarded (Rahm always called their ideas that, not them) without endless hurt feelings so hurt that people would shoot themselves in the foot to get revenge. Yes the white guy could make deals with the Rs if the Rs were a House majority - he'd have to and that would be recognized. Nobody would call that capitulating. Clinton made a deal with Gringich, signed welfare reform, no one said he "capitulated" to the right.

Yes the White guy could make any compromise he needed to get a deal - and no one would call that capitulating. A white guy would not have the problem of people disliking him due to the color of his skin - that problem would not even come up. (Obama himself said nothing about this).

You didn't vote for "change you can believe in." You voted for a politician with that slogan. To me that crap is really disingenuous or pathetically unsophisticated.

[Union Scribe]

99. True, but that's because of jaded, political attacks like the article in question.

When partisan hacks water down racism into a word that can mean anything, you need to blame them for it.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

68. I think it's sad that you feel so compelled to use incorrect overgeneralizations

to keep the arguments going.

It's inaccurate, hyperbolic and unproductive.

[Jakes Progress]

78. They have little else. It is the sign of hopeless desperation.

Of course, the administration could actually start to become the promise that it seemed to be in 2008. But that would piss off so many corporations and might even make the neocons mad. So they have to keep on being reagan democrats and calling honest liberals names. Racist is just the current one. They hope that it will conflict those that are trying to get Obama to be a better person and a better Democrat.

[vaberella]

117. A perfect example of whom Melissa Harris-Perry is speaking to and of.

And it's posts like yours that makes African American posters feel unwelcome.Because have to be "Playing the race card." Jackass posts like this don't normally deserve responses...but I think it's to people like you Melissa Hariss-Perry was speaking too. ow insulting. Because of course our concerns are not legitimate.

[Lorien]

145. Indeed. The only time White house claws come out it's for Liberals and

Progressives. They do everything imaginable to coddle the far right. To them, their only true enemy is us; the ones who put them in office (no Obama, Goldmann Sachs didn't do it for you on their own).

[SidDithers]

6. Unrec...

:rofl:

Sid

[Union Scribe]

100. Everyone can finally sleep now that you've added this important contribution.

[Fuddnik]

108. Double Rec!

Dis

[SidDithers]

121. The OP didn't comment on the articles they cut & pasted...

Why should I?

Sid

[Honeycombe8]

8. No, it's not. It's a GOP wet dream. Something to split the Democrats & weaken them. nt

[KoKo]

19. That's what I'm thinking...some Dem Neo-Lib Startegy to divide us further...and

I really wish I didn't think this...but after years of money down the Dem Party ...it starts to get to you..after awhile.

After Howard Dean...who tried to rebuild the Party ...who did the Dems listen to? The Neo-Libs and the Neo-Cons."

And what happened to "Verified Voting" and "Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the multidude of "Crimes" the Bushies did along with Greenspan and the "Global Financial Crash" that Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Greenspan presided over going back through "Clinton-Gore Deregulation" and back to Carter and then to REAGAN!

They are ALL INVOLVED... but those of us who tried to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...are TRASHED..VILLIFIED as "Not Loyal to Dem Party" as "outliers" and some kind of "Hippie Left Overs" that Rahm Emmanuel could call "Fucking Retards" and others in the Obama administration called out in the most foul of terms that they never applied to what Democratic Activists saw as the "Real Enemy" the "RW..TeaParty sponsored by Koch Brothers" and the Supreme Courts dictum that "Corporations are People" and have every right to pour Billions/Trillions into electing "THEIR CANDIDATES" while teachers, firefighters, police, service people who work in restaurants on through to health care, home care, temp workers, part-time workers, burger flippers, and all the rest of us trying to get by have only to "pony up $5.00 Donations" in the thousands and the Supremes SAY...we will have same voice as Wall Street Billionaires, CEO's of Multi-Nationals, International Hedge Fund Managers and the REST of the Corporate Whores.

YEAH! $5.00 a pop from a THOUSAND TEACHERS can fight agains the Koch Brothers and Wall Street and the rest of the Corporate Oligarchy who runs and rules America along with the Bankster Frauds who brought down Wall Street and the World Economy who have NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

Sell me a bridge in Brooklyn!

[Supersedeas]

86. I definitely see where you are coming from

[Honeycombe8]

131. What you say in your post is not what I meant at all. I meant...it sounds

like something the Republicans would plant (like Cheney's obvious recent comment that liberals were right to expect and want Hillary Clinton to run in 2012), hoping some Democrats would take the bait.

[Supersedeas]

165. now i follow ya

[Better Believe It]

12. Another post suggests Al Sharpton might be using the "racism" line to discredit white liberals

[KoKo]

49. If white liberals don't get out and vote then what happens to this election?

How can Obama win as a Democrat without white liberal voters? That's what makes no sense. And, that he trashed the most activist of us early on with people in his administration mocking us. Now he gets out there and tells the Black Caucus to get out of their bedroom slippers and start to march?

What kind of advice is he getting? And, from the folks who got him elected ...who don't seem to understand the mood of the Dems out here who can't understand :wtf: is going on when they've had a record of trashing the Dem Activists who worked to get him elected and now they play a race card against many of those same people to dig the knife in deeper?

What about all of us who worked together (white liberal, Hispanic libera, Black Liberal) and many Repugs sick of Bush along with Indies to get him elected.

Why trash his own supporters? Saying we havent worked hard enough. It's a real "downer message."

Yes...the alternative is terrible but can you get folks out to the polls as Dems who feel they are voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Who is inspired by that kind of stuff as a campaign message? :shrug:

And, it's not just about Obama it's getting vote out for all our STATE DEMS that we need to get voted in and House and Senate Dems. If folks don't come out we lose our State Dems and US House and Senate REPS.

It's not just about Obama it's enthusiasm for the Down Ticket that Obama's job is to get elected along with himself!

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[abelenkpe]

13. For me it's just this:

"...his inexplicable fealty to the recession-creating oligarchs on Wall Street..."

Hate the infighting on the left. Worry it will doom us all to suffer a republican president and policies that will cripple the nation and world. We are on the edge of major changes that will shape our future for a generation. It's no time to have lunatics in charge.

[yurbud]

16. the rest of us worry that that quote means Obama won't make the major changes

but will instead only shift through the wastebasket of the right looking for ideas they aren't using at the moment (and some they are still using).

[abelenkpe]

129. Yeah I get that and worry about that too

But no where near as much as worrying about how a republican take over of congress or the white house will effect my rest of us. More progressive and liberal dems supporting and pushing Obama to the left can accomplish more than giving up on him and giving in to republicans.

[Better Believe It]

21. Melissa Harris-Perry: "It's possible that I'm absolutely wrong about white racial bias on the left"

"It is completely possible that I am absolutely wrong about white racial bias on the left against President Obama. Certainly, it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong in my political analysis."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/163629/epistemology-race-talk

You are absolutely wrong in that political analysis.

[polichick]

24. I love Melissa but she is wrong about this one.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

34. Well, she got one thing right...that she could be absolutely wrong.

Even her limited definition of "friend" is bizarre. Not all are comprised of "shared sacrifice and joys"; some are about yard-work and margaritas.

I once held her in fairly high regard but with this hit piece against Walsh (and whitey), she comes across as a petty Mean Girl, and definitely not Nation-worthy.

I'm not shut down... I'm digging in only more.

[Number23]

47. "with this hit piece against Walsh (and whitey)"

Unbelievable.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

53. Believable.

She admits she could be wrong...she is. She's also petty and rude and offers up a bizarre definition of "friendship."

Mock DUers all you want, crap like this only makes me dig in even more.

[Number23]

55. She doesn't admit that she was wrong

You need to read the piece and not go by the lies of someone with a DOCUMENTED agenda. If anything, Perry doubles down harder that her argument was real and brings forth a profound understanding of American history and politics that bolsters her statements.

And if all of that makes you uncomfortable, maybe you need to be. Digging in deeper into being wrong only hurts you, doesn't do a damn thing to me or anyone else.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

67. "Could" be wrong -- don't misrepresent what I wrote. (n/t)

[Union Scribe]

101. How nice that she built an escape hatch into her stupid argument. nt

[Supersedeas]

163. It is a saturated topic now...no escape hatches...white liberals have been served

with racists notices

Answering that summons will only prove how hype-sensitively racist you are.

[CakeGrrl]

25. Unrec.

The constant complaining about stifling dissent is ridiculous.

The MSM loves to report dissatifaction with and criticism of the President.

Show me where it's being censored.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. It certainly ain't being censored here. The ODSers with their self-inflicted victimhood

sounds so familiar. It's exactly what the wingnuts do when challenged. Play the victim: "You're playing the race card," "you're trying to stifle criticism," etc. This is the exact language that the righties use when they want to deflect the conversation or change the subject. There is so much straw on these men that the Big Bad Wolf couldn't blow it down!!

[Bobbie Jo]

102. ...and look who's leading the march.

Believe It.

Wake up people. Your chain is being seriously yanked.

[Ignis]

141. You want us to show you posts titled "Deleted message?"

Yes, that would certainly be an easy case to make. :freak:

[CakeGrrl]

155. Deleted posts are deleted for breaking the rules of this forum, NOT

because they are critical of the President.

The point is clear: Some cannot separate reasonable criticism from over-the-top bashing that falls beyond the bounds of civility for this forum.

[Ignis]

157. And some think criticizing an elected public official...

Is morally equivalent to personally attacking another DUer.

Hell, perhaps they think it's worse. :shrug: It's certainly a strange logical disconnect.

[treestar]

26. Since nonwhites aren't ditching him

And they have more reason to dislike right wing policies, it is actually highly suggestive. Why would white liberals be even more liberal than nonwhite liberals?

[Chan790]

35. Actually his support has fallen more among non-white liberals.

He's down into the 40% range with Hispanics after winning the hispanic vote nationally by a wide margin in 2008 (I'll get the % and come back: 66%) and despite winning 95% of the AfAm vote in 2008, his approval among AfAm voters is hovering around 80%.

Nice try though. We don't oppose him because of his race...we oppose him because he's stinking at the job. It seems that's race-blind even.

Edit: Also, his "strongly-support" % among AfAm voters is 58%...it was 83% less than a year ago.

[otohara]

38. When Practically Everyone in Radio/TV/Blogs/Posts

rags on the man every fucking day - he's bound to lose support.

It's called group-think, it's catching

[Mimosa]

143. It's the economy

Young black people and older black people who can't find jobs aren't as enthusiastic as in 2007-2009.

[treestar]

50. Don't see any proof of that.

The MSM simply tries to pretend all of his supporting groups are abandoning them, because that is helpful to Republicans.

I really doubt you can prove nonwhite support is dropping even more.

We're talking support, not "approval" whatever those silly polls mean. That could change day to day for any given person.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. Depending on the poll, this is not true at all. In fact, all your numbers are bullshit

[Chan790]

125. It's from the Gallup poll in the OP.

The one cited by Ms. Walsh. If you want to contest the numbers, take it up with Gallup, not me.

The 58% is from the same poll but not cited in the OP.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

152. For every poll that cites one result, there are a million others that will contradict it.

You'll never, ever see me post any result from any poll. I don't care if I agree with the result or not. You'll never see me doing it because polls do not matter at this very early stage in the game. What's more is that despite the political activism in the black community, I do not know of one, single black American who has ever been polled or surveyed. Not one!

[CakeGrrl]

94. As of this week, a CNN poll as him at 80% Dem/Lib job approval.

About 75% of Dems want to see him re-nominated.

So about 80% of Dems do NOT think he's "stinking at the job". This is not a majority opinion that you hold.

[Chan790]

126. I never said it was the majority opinion...

I suggested it was the primary motivating factor, not race, for those that don't want to see him re-elected...the other 20%/25%-split.

Hint: Despite what some people think...it's not always about race or genetics. Really.

[Number23]

82. Treestar, this is such an excellent point and one that so many seem to just be glossing right over

Since nonwhites aren't ditching him And they have more reason to dislike right wing policies, it is actually highly suggestive.

Exactly. Minorities have more to lose than whites when right wing policies are implemented. So why has his support plummeted SO MUCH from whites while remaining still in the majority (55%+ among Latinos, 85+ among blacks, can't find numbers on Asians for some reason) among minorities?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

43. no it isn't n/t

[xchrom]

57. Recommend

[John Agar]

58. I'm deeply disappointed in Dr. Harris-Perry.

Not because she wants us to support the president, and believes it is he right thing to do.

I just don't like the way she slung around the racism charge, and then, it the follow-up aimed it straight at her colleague, Joan Walsh.

Very bad form, wrongheaded, and gratuitously insulting to boot.

I think I'll be paying less attention to her now.

[DURHAM D]

70. +1

I am deeply disappointed in her sophomoric analysis and petty followup. Like you I will no longer pay much attention to what she has to say.

At this time I plan to vote for Obama IN SPITE OF the Blue Brigade on DU and MHP.

[jefferson_dem]

150. Good for you!

Vote Obama / Democrat! Screw the cynics and naysayers!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

105. Sirota is a DUer?

[jefferson_dem]

69. Sirota?

Whatever. No credibility. Unrec.

[pmorlan1]

88. Nailed It!

Sirota's piece nailed it!

[BklnDem75]

90. Translation:

That spotlight is way too bright!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bobbie Jo]

110. .

Clueless.

Sleep it off.

[Lord Helmet]

120. boom

shakalaka

[philly_bob]

92. Please note that this is not an argument Obama is making. (nt)

[CakeGrrl]

95. SO true, but wait...someone will credit OBAMA with playing the race card.

There's already so much misinterpretation of what MHP was saying, this is bound to be next. Some people are on full-tilt boogie to remain convinced that Obama hates Progressives and bashes them every chance he gets.

Too many have swallowed the Jane Hamsher "He's just not that into you" tripe.

[Union Scribe]

104. True, he's too smart and classy for that. nt

[vaberella]

115. This is a lie. An utterly false lie. n/t

[Better Believe It]

136. So you think that progressive criticism of Obama is caused by anti-Black racism infecting liberals

rather than legitimate policy differences.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim or is this just the latest "talking point" line of political attack against liberals/progressives?

[great white snark]

124. Unrec. Rovian straw men? Really?

Fan of Karl?

[dennis4868]

132. Ms. Harris is going to get BASHED...

by the 24/7 irrational Obama haters...truth is she has more brains than anyone who comes here and posts stuff.

[Exultant Democracy]

133. We would have voted for Clinton if we wanted a DLC democrat.

[Mimosa]

134. I supported Obama enthusiastically because I believed 'a new broom sweeps clean'.

Silly me.

[Exultant Democracy]

135. And now we get the pleasure of unenthusiastically supporting him as the lesser of two evils

At least we know a real progressive could get elected, now we just need one to run in 2016.

[Better Believe It]

137. Is Perry detached from real working class problems and life among Black people and all races?

I think that perhaps Perry is too heavily influenced more by her comfortable upper class milieu and is detached from real working class life among Black people and all races. She easily detects racism among progressives but can't find any cause for working class criticism of or opposition to Obama's pro-Wall Street/Corporate America economic policies.

[EffieBlack]

138. Yeah . . . what could she possibly know about the black working class

She needs to just shut up and let people like Dave Sirota and folks here on DU tell us all about it.

:sarcasm:

[Better Believe It]

140. I welcome her comments in support of the Black working class. Has she made any?

I'm not familiar with her writings defending the Black working class and opposing the Wall Street/Corporate attack on their jobs and living standards.

Can you find any such comments by her?

Post them.

Or at least their links.

[Major Hogwash]

164. The extent of your ignorance about Harris-Perry is astounding!!!

Yet you stick the knife in her back with the precision of an assassin - a person engaged in character assassination, that is.

[Bobbie Jo]

169. It's exactly what they're here to do.

From day 1. I certainly wouldn't expect this poster to have the slightest idea of what s/he's talking about here.

If it deviates from the daily talking points, s/he's clueless.

[KoKo]

146. An interesting point there. Once you are inside privilege you look

on the "outsiders" in a very different way. Not all folks become what they rail against...but too many do and are out there pontificating in these dire times.

There is such a disconnect between "I Made It...and Why Can't You"....and the rest of folks that are increasingly unable to make it in any way.

[bvar22]

139. All those Millions of Fringe Leftists...

...who worked and voted for Obama in 2008,
and NOW dare to criticize his Center-Right administration,
have ALL become Racists during the last 3 years.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed







You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ignis]

142. +1. It's the ONLY possible reason for disenchantment, right?

[KoKo]

147. Amazing how hard the "fringe Leftists" worked to get a Dem Senate and Congress

(even having to accept Blue Dogs because of many reasons) but in the end...we are rewarded with epithets from Rahm Emmanuel, Robert Gibbs and others right off the bat when Obama chose his cabinet and press secretary.

Then the "real fun began." :-( Trashing Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Glenn Greenwald, Frank Rich,Jane Hamsher, Dennis Kucinich David Sirota and anyone who spoke out worrying about the direction the new Democratic Team in the White House was taking. So many under the bus. Former heroes turned into almost criminals to be vilified around here. It started earlier with Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson and others questioning our war policy in Iraq and Afghanistan even before the election.

[bvar22]

149. Be careful,

your Closet Racism is showing.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

[jefferson_dem]

148. Who said "all"...

other than you? Straw man.

[TheKentuckian]

158. Who among those who are critical is included and excluded from being racist

If I think an individual or a group are racists or bigots then I call them out by name. There is no doubt who I'm talking about.

So, who are the "some white liberals" in question and if you aren't white but are still critical does that mean we are exempt or has the racism charge not been properly calibrated?

What about liberals who had no interest in repeating the Clinton Administration? If one thinks Bubba fucked us good and find his triangulation sickening how are such folks supposed to use Clinton as a yardstick when he didn't measure up and left us with all kinds of corporate boobytraps?

Why does Harris-Perry think "white liberals (along with liberals of all sorts of stripe)" didn't support the Clinton on hand if one was seen as an acceptable option?

The argument is stupid and it is a tactic to de-legitimize and attack. What else would be the point of such an accusation without a specific target?

[woo me with science]

161. Devastating response to this garbage.

There is a great desperation, it seems, to talk about anything but Obama's record.

Thank you.

[zacherystaylor]

162. Don't give Melissa Harris-Perry brownie points

Thanks for pointing this out. I looked up her original article on the internet, and her follow up defense to the criticism to it and my reply is as much to them as your comments.

http://www.thenation.com/article/163544/black-president-double-standard-why-white-liberals-are-abandoning-obama

http://www.thenation.com/blog/163629/epistemology-race-talk

I don’t doubt the possibility that there could be some subtle racism among many of the liberals who don’t intend it; and if the circumstances were different I might think there might be some legitimacy to this argument; however a close look clearly indicates that even if this is true it isn’t nearly the biggest problem with his loss of support. One of the biggest examples is how quickly he forgot that promise to “put on some comfortable shoes and walk” with people that wanted to stand up for their rights. When the Wisconsin protests and many others began he was mostly silent. A good argument could be made that he couldn’t be expected to join the picket lines because he had other things to do and because of security reasons; however he still could have used the bully pulpit to speak loud and clear on the behalf of the protestors. He didn’t instead on another occasion he made a lame argument about how “I tried to negotiate but they wouldn’t budge.” This might have sounded better if he didn’t talk so much about how he was in a rush to compromise while the Republicans were saying no compromise.

And the list goes on much longer.

“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.”

This arguments bites due to the simple fact that, once again, he could have used the bully pulpit to point out the fact that advertising money and profits can never go to health care expenses; and a much better argument could have been made which he didn’t even try to do.

“I found some responses to my piece to be fair and important, others to be silly and nonresponsive, and still others to be offensive personal attacks. But those categories are par for the course.”

True but a distraction and simply by reminding the public of the fact that there are always offensive attacks it implies that this could be intended to distract from the issues. This argument wouldn’t count for much if she actually did address other important issues; but she didn’t so it is worth considering. This seems as if it might be part of a throw things out there and see if they stick tactic that could be used to keep the argument going and minimize productive discussion.

In all fairness Melissa Harris Perry and others have often made some very good arguments and are often the most rational people in the Mass Media; however they seem to be attempting to cash in on their brownie points and use these legitimate arguments to pretend that there really is someone representing the public. Then when the protests get too big they can parade out champions like Mellissa, Rachel, Ed, Lawrence etc. and claim that they were leading the effort for reform. This would ignore that this grass roots movement was growing below without much if any attention from the Mass Media until it became impossible to completely ignore.

[zacherystaylor]

166. The bickering goes on

Apparently someone has written another op-ed that was so inflammatory that Mellisa Harris Perry might be able to take the high ground; or at least appear to. Just because there is another more extreme argument doesn't mean that Obama is actually paying attention to the issues which effect us all. this should distract from that basic fact.

http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/30/lyons_harris_perry_obama_race/

[alsame]

167. IMO, the original Harris-Perry article was designed to

preemptively scapegoat 'racist white liberals' in the event that Obama loses in 2012.

In much the same way that a group of posters here on DU continually blame 'progressives' for the 2010 losses (despite frequently linked evidence to the contrary), a small group is now heavily invested in convincing themselves and as many people as possible that anything less than unconditional support for the President and everything he does is due to latent racism.

The actual actions and policies of this administration are not open to discussion - either in the H-P article or in the discussions here on DU - it's about race and only race.

[EffieBlack]

170. If so, how would you characterize Gene Lyons' hit piece against Harris-Perry

Was it an attempt shut down a progressive black woman's criticism of white progressives?

Or do you think it was something more noble?

[demgrrrll]

171. Good response

[EffieBlack]

172. It's absolutely fascinating to me that those who are so upset with MHP don't seem the least bit

concerned about Gene Lyons. MHP said that some white liberals apply a double standard based on race - something that is impossible to deny - and people around here lost their damned minds. On the other hand, Lyons viciously and personally attacked MHP, yet hardly anyone seems to care - and some in fact have claimed that she deserved it.

Apparently, when black people criticize white people, we're just trying to shut down debate, but when white people criticize black people, we're just getting what we deserve.

Message received loud and clear.

[ClarkUSA]

173. The double standard is all across the board, just as there has always been.

It's absolutely fascinating to me that those who are so upset with MHP don't seem the least bit concerned about Gene Lyons. MHP said that some white liberals apply a double standard based on race - something that is impossible to deny - and people around here lost their damned minds. On the other hand, Lyons viciously and personally attacked MHP, yet hardly anyone seems to care - and some in fact have claimed that she deserved it.

Apparently, when black people criticize white people, we're just trying to shut down debate, but when white people criticize black people, we're just getting what we deserve.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=782762&mesg_id=787438

Message received loud and clear.

Part 2 may be in order, Effie.