It would be welcome to see some comments here, but just about every time I post about anything related to race, commenters run for the hills rather than weigh in and discuss.

My extended family is multi-racial: As far as I can tell through my own white priviledge, race has never had anything to do with how I see or judge others.

My own distain for Obama has to do with his agressive lying on LGBT issues, his repeatedly giving in to Republicans and throwing his own party under the bus allegedly “in the interest of bipartisanship”, his kow-towing to corporate interests and fundamentalist Christian wanna-be theocrats, and his failure to fulfil promises to end the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and close Gitmo. It has nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with his policies and actions.

There is no doubt that, for many, Obama’s race is a factor: that much is obvious. But to scream “RACIST!” at even legitimate concerns over whether he truly represents the ideals of the Democratic Party or liberals in general is itself racist, as it assumes that the only possible basis for disapproval is the color of his skin. The purpose of those screams is to shut down any and all dissent, to make the mere act of asking questions or seeking clarification into something ugly. That is totalitarianism, not democracy, and it is very sad to see both the ferverent opponents and fanatical disciples resorting to such tactics.

That’s my issue – there are so many fundamentally racist things going on in this country, that to cry racism on criticism of Obama is counter to the message that got him elected in the first place.

Obama is a politician. He happens to be biracial, and his personal story and professional rise both capitalizes on his background, yet attempts to minimize its role in how it informs his politics. As you mentioned, he has taken positions that are certainly not progressive, or representative of candidate Obama. That is surely rife for legitimate criticism, as is his peculiar belief that he can negotiate with the Teabagger-beholded GOP. Any president of any color would be subject to criticism from the left (of any color).

Yes, Obama has to weather direct and dog-whistled racism. He’s known that from the beginning. And people would be lying if they thought none of the criticism from the left is affected by color-aroused thinking. Our culture is racist, we all have to work hard to overcome the system of bias that is still affirmed in way too many circles. Too many people do not socialize or are close to a person of another race; there is still not enough cross-cultural awareness.

What more needs to be said?

…But to scream “RACIST!”… The purpose of those screams is to shut down any and all dissent.

And the Obama administration’s continued hippie-punching of the past week only confirms this.

And don’t think the POTUS doesn’t play the race card when it suits him politically. This is why trying to paint this as a one-way street on race is not helpful. We are a country in desperate need of honest discussion about race, and it usually only comes up when you see intellectual and political dishonesty about how and when it is used.

Anthea Butler associate professor of religion at the University of Pennsylvania, at Religion Dispatches:

President Obama’s speech to the Congressional Black Caucus this weekend was a combination of traditional black preaching and civil rights rhetoric, designed to stir up his beleaguered African American base. Not everyone was impressed, however. Maxine Waters, congresswoman from California and a member of the CBC, said “she found the president’s language a bit curious. She says that Obama didn’t address Hispanics in such a blunt manner and would never use that language in a speech to a gathering of gays or Jews.”

I agree. While my Twitter feed was filled with happiness about the president finally “speaking the truth,” I was perturbed by his rhetorical delivery and statements like “taking off your slippers.” Seriously. Has the president ever asked a white Democratic audience to “take off your slippers?”

Obama’s performance of black preaching may play well to church folks who love him no matter what, but to those critical of his policies that have placed African Americans at the highest unemployment rates, the president’s fake whooping rings hollow. Why is it that every time the president speaks to a predominately black audience, he goes into a preacher’s cadence, and starts to speak as though he were at a pulpit? Why is it that he never gets “righteously angry” with the white folks as often as he does at the black folks?

Two words for those who think that white liberals let Bill Clinton off of the hook.

Ralph Nader. Election 2000.

(luv the edit feature…

And of course when you confront the inherent racism in certain claims, like him not really being born in American, you get accused of playing the “race card”. I still haven’t gotten a coherent answer when I ask a birther where the “go back to Ireland” signs are.

Since he can’t run on his record, which is abysmal, all Obama’s got is the race card. To let Obama off the hook for his ghastly neoliberal policies because he’s black is racist.

Four years ago, I heard almost the same arguments from Hillary Clinton supporters. The only difference was that people who didn’t want her to get the nomination were sexists, not racists. Wrong. I, for one, didn’t want a card-carrying DLC hawk at the top of the ticket.

As for Obama, his main virtue as a candidate in the primaries was that he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. So what happened? He brought in an entire platoon of Clinton retreads and used the DLC playbook to run both the party and the government. I didn’t abandon him, he abandoned me.

Speaking of the 2000 election, once it became clear to the Gore campaign that he was in tight race and Nader might hurt him, what did they do? They sent out hacks like John Sweeney to wag their fingers at Nader supporters. Not a winning strategy for winning friends and influencing people.

Yep.

The Obama Administration is using the exact same playbook from the Clinton Administration as it regards their treatment of liberals.

And then I was soooooooooooo tired of Democrats that felt that Ralph Nader stole the election from Al Gore.

Granted, most of those ~85,000 nader votes in Florida would have probably gone to Gore, it was Gore’s responsibility to actually win those votes.

Couple that with the fact that Herman Cain won the Tea Party/Republican Florida straw poll.

In 2008 history was made.

Two women of color were on the ballot for president in more than twenty states. They were Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clamente. They were ignored by the black establishment and black media, along with all the OTHER corporate media. In fact one can make the case that it was a repeat of the 1972 Shirley Chisolm for president campaign.

So please do not lecture us about racism, play the race card or any of that nonsense.

I do not have one drop of white liberal guilt flowing in my blood.

I have proud Irish fighting blood instead. My hero is Bernadette Devlin. Who received the keys to the City of Pittsburgh and then flew immediately to visit Angela Davis in prison and gave the keys to her.

Oh and time to leave the Veal Pen.

Can ya dig it?

Thank you for printing Anthea Butler’s statement, which is so very similar to my reaction to not only this weekend’s black caucus address but a couple of others Obama has made in the fundamentalist-preacher-in-the-pulpit style. Being older and white I have hesitated to mention this to anyone but my husband. Sad, since my college roommate and I had to fight the Black Panthers’ racism as well as the rednecks’ racism just because we were different colors and liked to hang out together. Sad, because there are are mixed races in our family. Sad, because I have never equated skin color with being any different than I am. But sadder still is Obama’s style of speech when addressing primarily black audiences. Now that is racist, to me. Borderline demeaning. My opinion of Obama is disgusted – he strikes me as a man always wanting the rich white people to accept him as an equal versus realizing they are on an equal playing field and going forward.

The idea that the left is racist is silly. Obama would not have won the first time if that were true. I’m disgusted and appalled with Obama but it has nothing to do with his skin color.

I think a lot of commenters are afraid of having the “R” word lobbed at them, just as they’re afraid to say anything about Israel for fear of having the “A” word lobbed at them.

Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that the new barrage of All-Obama-critics-are-racists attacks is hitting just as new polling shows his support is dropping fast with African-Americans:

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.

“There is a certain amount of racial loyalty and party loyalty, but eventually that was going to have to weaken,” said Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University, who studies African Americans. “It’s understandable given the economy.”

Well said.

The idea that liberals are abandoning Obama because of some latent “racism”, is outrageous nonsense. That Harris-Perry is pimping this flagrat lie redounds on she and her lack of character, far more than it does, to liberals and progressives.

The comparisons with Clinton, are as false as false teeth.

Clinton did not come in with two bloody, useless wars going on, one of which was utterly bullshit based.

The squandering of a big win in his case was done mainly because of his inability to keep his damn fly zipped; not because of his policies or because he had accomodated republicans to the astounding degree that has Barack Obama.

As his numbers continue to slide, we are going to see his apologists coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches, with all manner of odious excuses to support him for another four years. This is among the first, and most dishonest…so far…

That’s what’s so sad about people, be they black, female, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever, who use accusations of bigotry as a way to shut down criticism of certain things/people/concepts they hold to be sacrosanct and unquestionable: It tarnishes legitimate good-faith claims of bigotry.

“…the only difference was that the people who didn’t want her to get the nomination were sexists, not racists.”

Hammer-nail-bang. If I had a buck for every time I was called a “misogynist” for putting up that clip of her kissing McCain’s butt, and for pointing out that in the Conn. primary, she had supported Lieberman over a good antiwar candidate like Ned Lamont, I’d go out for a steak dinner tonight.

cant I be disappointed in President Obama simply because he is a bad President?

The idea that there is no racism on the left ain’t denial, it’s refusal.

You can ask many black people that live in “liberal enclaves” such as San Francisco or Boston or Chicago…

The very narrow question here is: are white liberals so highly critical of President Obama because of racism?

Personally, I don’t see liberals reacting all that differently from 1947-48.

Exactly.

We also need to bear in mind the imperative on the left to herd the cats for 11/2012; yea, Obama is a bad President but the alternative is worse. That is a hard message to sell.

I said in a post a few months ago that teh WH strategy to win 2012 was to play the race card and what it start to be pushed in MSM. It is now happening, do not be fooled. O will not win because he has proven on multiple levels to be a liar, and has done nothing to help main street, beyond a few crumbs here and there

Melissa Harris-Perry is so GD predictable.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. The problem isn’t that people are angry at the fact that Obama very deliberately chose to look after the Wall Street muggers over the Main Street victims. The problem is that these people are racist.

People who voted for Obama in 2008 to prove they were not racists should damn well be telling him to go fly a kite in 2012 to prove they’re not idiots. Certainly the people who object to his implementation of the Republican health care plan and general agenda, while telling the mugging victims to Eat Their Peas, are going to do so.

Wonder if Cornell West is a racist too. Must be, he seems to think Obama’s an ass…

Full disclosure: I am white and don’t know where to start with Melissa Harris-Perry’s article. If I read this article only, I would think she doesn’t understand what has happened. I think his pre-election supporters were expecting him to be unsuccessful with some campaign promises. They did however expect him to pursue them.

We all have prejudices of some sort, which sometimes show themselves when least expected – or even that we knew they existed within us until triggered. It is seemingly impossible to have a calm and coherent discussion about race with just about anyone, even if it is for the sake of further education and understanding on both sides.

When Obama was elected, there was a joke that made the rounds regarding people not voting for him because of his white half rather than his black half. Your understanding of that obviously depends on which race you are, but was the response given by white people who were being accused of racism when their vote had nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with his lack of experience. As a white person, I can never understand some things the same way a black person would, but I do like to ask why so that maybe I can understand the next time.

With that said, it seems that both Obama and his supporters use his race as an excuse for or against too many things. A story came out a week or so ago about the CBC not marching on Washington because of Obama’s dismal policies that continue to sustain high unemployment in the black community, but the stories also quoted them as saying if it had been Clinton or any other white President, they would have done so long ago. My opinion is that by not doing what they would have done with any previous President, they are doing a major disservice to everyone by prolonging race as a valid excuse for anything. Maybe it’s just me, but until we treat everyone the same – Presidents included – this is an issue that will not die.

Plus I can’t think of anything that will piss off those middle-of-the-roaders more than playing the race card.

All this rhetoric from Obama supporters sounds to me erringly similar to what Clarence Thomas said about a hight tech lynching.

I guess Cornell West is racist against his own community? Maxine Waters? Come on.

the stories also quoted them as saying if it had been Clinton or any other white President, they would have done so long ago.

…and others have said that the CBC wasn’t as hard on Clinton as they are on Obama or that the media is paying more attention to the CBC’s criticism of Obama.

Fact is we simply have more media and mediums to cover everything nowadays than we did during the Clinton Administration.

Some of us at FDL saw this coming, years ago!

Obama attempt to be black Reagan, or the Next Bill Clinton, has failed!!!

Obama is the one who did not understand the RACE ISSUE!

Obama thought a black presidential candidate could punch, Hippies, UNIONS, PROGRESSIVES, IGNORE BLACKS and HISPANICS, and get re-elected in 2012? not going to happen.

the only people that will vote for a black presidential candidate is Hippies, UNIONS, PROGRESSIVES, HISPANICS, and BLACKs.

Obama and his political team must now face this reality. FOR LOL

Obama and his political staff are the laughing stock of the politcal world!

Obama was going to have a hard time getting re-elected if he had done what FDR would have done, but Obama choose to do shit that Reagan, BUSH JR, and HOOVER would have done, which was INSANE.

Obama has no idea the hell that awaits him, he can joke and have fun with Blacks, but UNIONS, HIPPIES, and PROGRESSIVES are going to shocked his WORLD.

Obama? Clinton lied to you!, Clinton knew that Progressives, UNIONS, and Hippies would never let OBAMA fucked them over and than vote for Him.

Here is a dirty little secret that we Progressives must come to grips with? Clinton understands RACE RELATIONS a lot better than OBAMA ever did or ever will.

Obama talks about the magical and mythical middle like he can play there, well? OBAMA you can not!

Obama hated the fact that he could only play in the PROGRESSIVE PLAY GROUND.

So we should only vote for one of the two preselected corporate whores to be an American ?

Here come the smoke and mirrors.

Every minute spent defending oneself against bullshit accusations is one minute of reprieve for the assholes grasping at straws trying to defend the presididn’t.

Every inference of racism should be met with the very matter-of-fact, and totally substative charge that Barack Obama is a moneyed-interest plant.

Thanks for a well thought out post

There is no such thing as race in terms of science – there is only color of skin. But there is a culture forced on those with darker skins – a culture that Obama did not pass through until late in life. But let’s leave aside the question “Is he “really black”.

I do not know many families that are not “multi-racial” after only a few generations going back. Indeed light/white skin combined with blood that is identified medically as having “African” problems, like myself, makes you of what race? – The answer is “white” because of missing that cultural sieve, but again, there is no such thing as race.

I did not like Obama playing the “race card” in the SC primary in 08 (Hillary led 2 to one prior to his folks demanding “group loyalty” and then getting 80% of the “black” vote). I did not like Obama having his folks calling anyone who noted the “group loyalty” push a racist – as they called Bill Clinton a racist after he noted what was happening in the most neutral of words. Now I do not like Harris-Perry assuming “white liberal” rejection of Obama is racism, as she plays the white liberal guilt card.

But it is effective – to this day there are smart black folk that will tell you that Clinton went racist in the SC primary. There are white skinned folks that will express pride that they are not racist as shown by their vote for Obama. And there is Ms. Harris-Perry in THE NATION telling us about the racism of expecting Obama to be true to the words and promises he made in 2008 campaign, rather than throwing the left, and now the CBC, under the bus. Somehow Ms. Harris-Perry sees us expecting more from Obama than we would expect from a light skinned person – making us racist.

Joan Walsh of Salon, John Aravosis of Americablog, and yourself are correct in pointing out the problem with the Harris-Perry piece. IMHO it is Harris-Perry, and Obama, who are being “racist”. It does not prove Harris-Perry correct to note that there is still racism, by some, directed against those with dark skin in the US, because she is asking why those of us who supported Obama in 08 are not doing so now. Guess she thinks we became racists over the last 3 years.

?

My two cents. Most liberals and progressives realize that right wing attacks on Obama — and opposition to his proposals — has a strong racial undertone.

That means, to me, that they are MORE apt to cut him some slack for bad decisions than a white president. I believe this dynamic accounts for much of his dwindling support.

In other words, among liberals and progressives, race cuts in his favor, not against him.

The whole premise seems silly to me. If someone is a racist, why would he/she have voted for BO in the first place? Abandoning him now???

The race issue will is a part of this presidency. The republicans have and will use it overtly and covertly.
People like Mellisa Perry, Tom Joyner, and other obamabots will and are using it to ignite emeotional sentiment for BO on the other side.

Who knows how much each individual will succumb to the race argument. The failures of the president makes it impossible for any liberal with convictions to support. The race issue is relatively inconsequential from my point of view.

In Obama’s defense, he only “played the race card” after it was used on him. In the S.C. primary, Bubba used it when he compared Obama’s campaign to that of Jesse Jackson’s, year prior.

And Hillary, in her “savvy” stupidity, claimed that hard-working white people wouldn’t vote for Obama…with the clear implication that lazy black people WOULD vote for him.

The two situations have practically zero similarity.

The likelihood that a white POTUS with Obama’s record would be primaried is much higher, IMO.

*Sigh* I would have expected better of you, kevinchi.

Nader did not win any state. He did not receive enough votes in any state to swing the election in either direction. And the 11% of self-described Democrats who voted FOR BUSH did much greater damage than Nader’s candidacy possibly could have.

Nader was a non-issue, and a convenient excuse to ignore the failings of a Democratic candidate who could not even carry his own home state.

I’m a white straight dude and my gripe about Obama is his unwavering pursuit of neoliberal ideology.

I’m not a Democrat, liberal or progressive. I’m a Wobbly revolutionary.

“Among liberals and progressives race cuts in his favor, not against him.”

It absolutely does.

Akin to Stephen Colbert; I don’t see color. However, I surely do see bum fuck incompetence from the man.

Mr. Obama does seem to grasp the wisdom of Yogi Berra, who said: “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”

As long as the Democratic Party continues to blame Ralph Nader for their fate, rather than their lack of a coherent and credible plan in the public’s interest, they’ll continue to get their asses kicked.

And it won’t be because of Ralph Nader, who had absolutely no hand in their 2010 drubbing against a Republican Party that just ran the country into the ground.

I totally get what you (Pam) say about Obama breaking new ground, “failure not an option”, ergo play it safe. And I also get that much of the animus (nay, hatred) from mainly the right is driven by racism (I had to explain this to friends in Canada, where we live this Summer; they’re surprised).

But this suboptimization of the office of the president — i.e., try to reassure the nation and, especially the critics, that I (Obama) am not a radical angry black man — futile as that psychological gamesmanship is in the face of racism — was and has been job one. Play it safe; go along to get along; court the establish money folks; etc. And it looks to me like my fears were on target.

My problem — and I’m a white guy with all the subliminal racial baggage you care to attribute (though I worked my whole life with the poor and minorities in several social welfare fields) — is that I don’t give a flying fuck about Obama’s psychological hangups, any more than I did about junior Bush’. And, no, I did not have super aspirations for him beyond what he advertised (or lied about; my fears and disclaimer above speaks to that). The man has not just squandered a chance to behave like an average good liberal president. He has done positive damage — particularly to the aspirations of the young — that god knows when if ever, we’ll find a correction course.

THIS is why I wanted you on the FDL team, Pam.

Thank you.

I am a 58 year old white male and I never went to an election with more enthusiasm than I did voting for Obama. I have never been so disappointed and I will not vote for him again. Nor will I vote for any democrat for national office.

My disappointment lies entirely in the realm of policy although the constant lefty bashing from the white house makes my rejection of the democratic party much easier.

My goodness…

Did anyone at all read what I wrote

And then I was soooooooooooo tired of Democrats that felt that Ralph Nader stole the election from Al Gore.

Granted, most of those ~85,000 nader votes in Florida would have probably gone to Gore, it was Gore’s responsibility to actually win those votes

I don’t like the accusation myself. I was a Nader voter in 2000.

It is the responsibility of a candidate to win votes…if any Gore/democratic supporters think that they were owed those nader votes, they are delusional.

Reading comprehension people, please.

Did liberals vote for Nader as opposed to Al Gore? yes. i was one of them.

Would i have voted for Al Gore otherwise. Probably.

I am addressing the idea that (white) liberals are 1)leaving Obama in a way that they didn’t leave Clinton/Gore and 2) the cause is racism.

i don’t believe either one is true. there are a lot of factors that are being left out.

If you follow the links I posted here, you’ll find 277 reasons why this white liberal abandoned Obama.

In total, they add up to the simple fact that he abandoned the values that I had the audacity to hope we shared.

“…they add up to the simple fact that he abandoned the values that I had the audacity to hope we shared.”

Exactly!

Pam,

Thanks for your post. As such, very indicative for the “need” of a national discussion on Race, despite Clinton’s Call and for which he never attended. And “we” have.

Unfortunately, bigotry and racism will still be with, several years from now, and yet, I am not sanguine about such egregious behavior. To wit, I consider myself to be an “unassailable fact” voter and not either a low information voter or a wrong information voter. And therein is the difference.

And for this and other reasons, earlier today I wrote the following for the Cactus Juice Commentary located at the web site for the Chicano Veterans Organization. Enjoy!

“Over the Top” Among Progressives?

In a recent editorial from the New York Times, the political quest by Progressives, is taking a beating, as per this newspaper’s abject view. As such, the Times argues in the affirmative and has this to say.

“Instead, the left must realize that when progressives achieved success in the past, whether at organizing unions or fighting for equal rights, they seldom bet their future on politicians. They fashioned their own institutions — unions, women’s groups, community and immigrant centers and a witty, anti-authoritarian press — in which they spoke up for themselves and for the interests of wage-earning Americans.

“Today, such institutions are either absent or reeling. With unions embattled and on the decline, working people of all races lack a sturdy vehicle to articulate and fight for the vision of a more egalitarian society. Liberal universities, Web sites and non-governmental organizations cater mostly to a professional middle class and are more skillful at promoting social causes like legalizing same-sex marriage and protecting the environment than demanding millions of new jobs that pay a living wage.

“A reconnection with ordinary Americans is vital not just to defeating conservatives in 2012 and in elections to come. Without it, the left will remain unable to state clearly and passionately what a better country would look like and what it will take to get there. To paraphrase the labor martyr Joe Hill, the left should stop mourning its recent past and start organizing to change the future.”

Therefore, my first point of contention starts with who is defining the Progressive, and in this instance, the Times, fails in their espoused view.

Take, for example, the “racial and ethnics” are the effective and vast bulk of the Progressives in America, and there is no political dispute in this observation, since the Progressives in white America, are of a minimalist status in numbers. Moreover, “racial and ethnic” communities are inherently progressive in Thought and Action, even when measured for any of today’s social unrest. And further, our demographic trend “reinforces” this salient view. Consequently, having over 100,000 persons participating in any anti-immigration “get together” confounds the views of the writers at the New York Times.

And in any political lexicon, the nationalist rhetoric of the Nixon Era, and in their “framing” of a furthering strategy for “divide and conquer” and in keeping with their Southern Strategy led to the formation of a rhetorical device, now recognized as “racial and ethnics” and done with the single-minded purpose for separating the white progressive and while being dismissive of all other non-white progressives and thusly, leading to a minimalist behavior in political opposition to any perceived conservative agenda. And today, this conservative code talk has been taken “over the top” in that we are now the proud owners for this label of “racial and ethnics” and the conservatives have ceded their ownership to us and of their code talk and much to their dismay and dislike.

Consequently, our behavior for besting this nationalist rhetoric, demonstrates our skill set in furthering political inclusion and leading a Status of Egalitarianism, and which is found in our advocacy for reinforcing Social Security, expanding Medicare in terms of addressing “medical care delivered” and for perpetuating and even for expanding the Great Society, and which is sure to occur in the future, or of an approximating 40 years when “racial and ethnics” become the majority of America’s citizens.

Unfortunately, the writers at the New York Times cannot bring themselves to see their “reality” from our context and content or of our daily travails, since we do not have a need for America’s “newspaper of record” with regard to our civility and our engagement in public discourse, writ large. As such, the Internet will suffice.

And our voting behavior for “progressive” candidates for elective office, also speaks for us.

As to the political “infrastructure” relative to communities of interest and the attendant organizations, such as the 10,000 member strong National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, has no bearing or obvious redeeming value on the opinions of these editorial writers. Of course, the over 200 community-based organizations flying the flag of our National Council of La Raza has no bearing on the opinions of these writers at the New York Times, as well. But the demise of ACORN has and much to the delight of these newspaper writers and their ascribing to their un-acknowled conservatism, is not lost on us. Of courese, all this ‘confused” conservatism is done at the behest of the ownership of this Fourth Estate news outlet.

In closing, our affection and affinity for politics and business can be found and located at the London-based entity known as The Economist, and which informs us far better than the New York Times when it comes to the “unassailable facts” that animate our America. Thus, the denigrating consumer demand that passes for advertising and the “protection” of the Corporate Welfare State is not found in any overly abundance at The Economist but can be found throughout the New York Times, is well understood. And The Economist is just one of many news outlets available to us and which informs our “unassailable fact” Voting Behavior. Be so advised!

Jaango

Aloha, Pam…! Great post…!

One can only wonder if Obummer would’ve risen to Potus, if he’d been born in Detroit or Harlem, instead of Honolulu…!

If he had been born in Detroit or Harlem, he might understand the problems in the black community but he wasn’t and he doesn’t.

The existence of racism, particularly racism aimed at black people, doesn’t excuse bad policy or inaction or bad action. Obama is a politician in the worst sense of the word. If SOME white liberals worried less about being labeled a racist for dropping support for such an obvious tool, perhaps his support would be even less. And if Americans of all colors would overcome the sense of guilt from abandoning the only black guy (so far) ever elected President, his support would drop a bit more. The rest of Obama’s supporters would be a combination of team cheerleaders and lesser evil nose-holders.

I’m a white liberal who didn’t vote for him in the first place, so I’m not in that statistical pool. I was overseas and my ballot never arrived, but I was deciding between Nader and McKinney while waiting. I have to admit, though, when I actually watch his speeches, I want to believe.

Harris-Perry embarrasses herself…

again.

I am inimically prejudiced against ANY Arrogant (threatens to ASSASSINATE Any of US), intentionally incompetent, A$$ $OULed-out Baracketeer like O!

The stars were aligned to elect our first (black/biracial insert your fave term) President in 2008. GWB had driven the country into the ground and enough flat out racists said “let’s give the n*gger a try.” That means the economy was that craptastic. The President’s origins – lack of a black connection to American slavery and the civil rights movement that grew from it – made him more palatable to the Average Racially-Queasy American. I have no doubt had he been a candidate in the “traditional Af-Am politician pipeline”, for lack of a better term, could he have won the mighty middle of voters.

That’s just how it is. And his election was not the end of racism, though many wanted it to be so. And when he won, he unleashed the “angry white man losing privilege” demographic that was so out of control, it sped to gun stores to by weapons and ammo and wait for the white genocide to come.

As we can see, none of that came to pass, and certainly if the Obama plan was to disenfranchise whites and move America’s capital into the hands of POC, we’d see a bit more evidence of this by now.

I think progressives(gays, women, POC, etc.) are feeling burned because, yet again, there was not enough healthy skepticism about the reality – the country elected a center-right pol regardless of color, and there’s an overwhelming resentment that the left cannot generate a progressive candidate that will hold his/her promises once elected.

It annoys me when people try to shut up dissent re: Obama lest it make the Right look palatable. Come on, are you serious? None of the Clowns in the GOP Clown Car are remotely appealing. Otherwise you wouldn’t see Chris Christie now with a gun to his head by party insiders to jump in.

Former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean (R), who has known Chris Christie since he was a teenager, tells National Review that the governor is “very seriously” considering a presidential bid.

Said Kean: “It’s real. He’s giving it a lot of thought. I think the odds are a lot better now than they were a couple weeks ago.”

He added: “More and more people are talking to him. He’s getting appeals from major figures around the country. He is the best speaker I may have ever heard in politics.”Meanwhile, TPM looks at the “big money” trying to encourage Christie to run.

My criticism doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Obama in 2012, or make lame threats to sit it out. We have too many downticket races that do make a difference going forward. Protest votes/sit at home decisions only allow what happened in 2010 – too many wingnuts are running the asylum. And if you’ve been following me on the Blend for years, you know I have no problem calling out this President and his administration on its crafty, divisive and manipulative moves, particularly when attempting to quiet the LGBT community. Many of us without protections continue to suffer while the establishment parties with the Prez, fawning away.

I think progressives(gays, women, POC, etc.) are feeling burned because, yet again, there was not enough healthy skepticism about the reality – the country elected a center-right pol regardless of color, and there’s an overwhelming resentment that the left cannot generate a progressive candidate that will hold his/her promises once elected.

There is also the element of deliberate deception. George W. Bush did not run against his policies before embracing them, but Barack Obama did.

Interestingly, maybe racism is declining within the Reichwingers…! Who’d a thunk that Herman Cain would win the Florida Goober Straw Poll…?

Yes, it is the responsibilty of the candidate to win the votes, he doesn’t get them because they are his as of right. Ask Harry Truman how that was done.

It is I think a form of racism itself to think that white liberal disgust with Obama is based on racism. Now if you are talking about conservatives well that is another who thing.

I notice nobody is picking on Clarence Thomas because of his race.

I thank you for articulating your perspective on Melissa Harris-Perry’s postings. She has another post that just went up today where she tries to explain away why she is making the argument she is making. But, I think she is using race as a vector to rationalize the discontent in this country.

Her latest writing is a continuation of what she wrote and had to say about Cornel West. It will only sharpen as she is challenged because, like so many liberals or progressives that supported Obama, they are afraid of what to do if they “give up” on Obama. The electoral system does not allow for a third party challenger. Insurgent candidates are also shut down in the two parties so it is hard to mount a populist effort from within the two-party system. I think Harris-Perry, an intellectual, is aware of that.

I think she also worries about people abandoning electoral politics all together because they have been disappointed by Obama. People who decide to not vote because they are frustrated probably help reinforce her commitment to the argument that white liberals are consciously or unconsciously abandoning Obama because of race. (Note: I suspect when she says “white liberals” she means blue collar working class people, though she doesn’t further define “white liberals” in her post and would have benefited greatly if she had parsed what she meant out.)

I doubt she would be writing this if Obama’s re-election wasn’t almost one year away.

Not sure of your point – Thomas is not an elected official; his POV, race aside, was well known and laid out during those mind-blowing hearings. And, btw, he threw down the “high-tech lynching” race card. Racism and sexism played out in as sick a fashion imaginable. We haven’t progressed much politically when those issues are in the mix during high stakes gambles.

It is truly unfortunate that so many prominent African-Americans feel the need to try to quash criticism of Obama by crying racism. As an attorney and a peer – in terms of age, at least – and an African-American male, I can easily brush off such rhetorical bombs. But they tend to have the intended impact: to silence the harshest critics who may feel a twinge of guilt about leveling truly harsh words at our country”s first black president.
IMHO, Obama deserves most of the harshest words that have been leveled at him – at least coming from progressives – as he has betrayed those who helped to put him into office, time after time after time.
And the lame words of someone like MHP – is she angling for a job in the administration or on MSNBC? – only highlight his poor performance, by revealing how desperate his flunkies are to shut down legitimate discourse about what he has done and what he has not done.

Read her latest post…here is my initial reaction….I may say more later…

Harris -Perry gets at a deep truth when she more or less says that blacks and whites don’t perceive things in a similar way even if we see and/or experience the same thing objectively.

Perception is reality, whether we like it or not.

My criticism doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Obama in 2012, or make lame threats to sit it out.

I’m sorry to have to say this, but you just pulled out all of your own teeth.

What Pam has done is give us a preview of the coming fight with the Obama-choir, and it’s well that she’s done it. They accuse us of extreme “purity” but it’s they and their ilk, who are so blindly willing to toe the party line, instead of admitting to the simple truth.

That truth being that if we run Barack Obama again, we’ll get hammered worse than we did in the mid-terms.

Barack Obama’s re-election is a lot further away than a year.

More like a few turns of the Kharmic wheel, and only if he comes back as someone else. )

“…you just pulled out all of your own teeth.”
)

It’s true. If we support him again, the progressive wing of the party will have as much clout as the White House dog.

For a long, long, time, the dem leadership’s attitude toward progressives will be:

“Okay. Shit right here…good dog…now shit over there. Excellent! Now, watch closely while we wave a possible liberal appointee in front you…hey! It could happen!”

And if we go against him how much clout will the Progressive wing of the Party have? Excuse me while I take off these slippers and put on my marching boots!

Despite the progressive stereotype, there is absolutely NOTHING “lame” about my not-a-threat-it’s-a-fucking-blood-promise not to vote for the corporate lackie in the White House.

Right, there is nothing lame about that, but wasn’t the quote about “I might not vote for Obama” from someone else?

Sorry, I have no interest in living under Republican rule. I’m doing it right now in NC for the first time since Reconstruction and it sucks. Our Dems here are problem cases at times (not progressive enough), but to see what has happened for a short time under the GOP – marriage amendment, environmental protections rolled back, the unending attack on our schools…it goes on and on.

Third party isn’t an option, it hasn’t been. And I’ve seen in NC what happens when progressives stay home out of frustration.

LOTS of clout. )

For the people who, early on, got his train running (at the same time we de-railed Hillary’s “triangulation special”) to bail on him, will say to present and future democrats:

“If you run as a progressive then govern as a republican, we will make you pay a political price.”

That’s a teensy bit more of a “heads up!” than: “Four more years!”.

Pam, I think you’re ignoring what’s coming down the pike. We have so many stinking, fetid’ chickens coming home to roost that I would rather have the GOP back in the White House than have a “democrat” like Obama there.

It’s like this: Obama inherited an either/or situation. Either he went to bat against the assholes, or they would eat him alive, and they are eating him alive…and the tab for the lunacy that they created, and which he has sustained so much of, is coming due, in no uncertain terms.

In any case, I just don’t believe we have a choice. If you think that Obama can win WITH our support, then I think you and the other people who want to stick with him have an obligation to explain how he’s going to do that, with the republicans sitting in the driver’s seat…where, after all, he put them.

“Republican Rule”
Does that mean endless war? Super legal surveilance? Assassinating citizens without trial? Giving Wall-Street whatever they want? Cementing Health Insurance extortion schemes? Waiting until Dan Choi embarasses your sorry ass until you stand up for only one injustice? Giving away our resources? Killing more people with robot drones? Drilling in the gulf? Building oil pipelines across the country to facilitate releasing enough carbon in the air to do the planet in? Promoting more nukes? WTF?

I think Harris-Perry should have left her initial essay as it stands – and stand behind it whole cloth. Her latest piece, The Epistemology of Race Talk, is quite defensive. There is no right way to discuss the complexities of race where one side emerges 100% right or wrong. If it were that simple, we wouldn’t be having these charged discussions. She raised good points, others I thought ran so far up the speculation flag pole as to only be inflammatory without data to support it. When you open up a conversation in this way, you have to be ready to receive the blowback. It’s not fair, but it’s expected. You have to have thick skin to take the topic on. I’ll give her credit for that.

Being fooled into voting for Barak Obama only facilitates all the things in my last comment, and more. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are ALL on the chopping block with a republican majority in only ONE FUCKING hall of congress. The democrats do not represent you and voting for them only gives them license to continue to roll us.

Don’t be lame. That’s a plea, not an insult.

I grew up in a town where every joke was about a N-gger, a P-lock and a Jew either that or some demeaning story about women or f-gs! Apologies to all! It was part of every day life and all though I have grown to recognize the ignorance of those I grew up with and my own childhood gullibility, I still find myself intellectually ashamed at some of my irrational racist thoughts, brought on by some random stereotypical image or situation. My point is I am still growing and we are still growing and while having a black President may have sharped the edge of the discussion it is and will continue to move in a positive direction or we should at least hope so! Oh and my support for Obama’s reelection is stronger than ever!

To paraphrase: “Thank you sir may I have another.”

The way the bullfight works is the bull gets tricked into going for the cape. Keep waving this particular cape (racism) or any other one they dream up.

I’m gonna go for the groin.

Pam, I agree with most everything in your post, including being under no illusions about the possibility of both being progressive and having some racist, etc. inclinations.

The one paragraph I’d challenge a bit is the following:

“But I’m sure you can talk to any number of people of color or women (or both) who broke barriers in their jobs and communities who felt the weight of ‘failure is not an option’ — that if you didn’t perform perfectly, you were ruining chances for those who followed in your footsteps.”

That’s not analogous to Harris-Perry’s charge. The “failure is not an option” pressure comes mostly from women and people of color. It could come from some particular white liberals who stuck their necks out it supporting the woman or person of color, but most of it is in-group pressure. That’s not at all how Harris-Perry was portraying it. She was portraying it as a “kinder, gentler” version of outright racial hostility.

Agreed, Tech,
My issue is the disdain in general this White House has shown towards the center – left and the Left of the party, and the obsequiousness which it treated the Right Wing Reactionaries.

It was not that long ago that the Press Secretary and the Chief of Staff were openly insulting the Left.

Now, they are trying to sell us on “Spine you can believe in”
As if!

We will finally have shown the leadership that we are not rainbow-bedecked zombicrats, mindlessly pulling the lever out of fear of the republicans.

ONE THIRD of us vote Republican. Perhaps it is time to give the LCR’s their with and bring in a wholly right wing republican government that not only will take the final reins off of Capitalism, but also start re-criminalising sodomy, and sending our LCR brethern to Camp Marcus Bachmann for “discipline” and “education”

Want to bet on just how many of them stay republican then?

I think we all have some racism, I know I do. For instance, when I walk pass a group of black teenagers, my fear jumps alot higher than it would if I passed a group of white teenagers. It things like that , that tells me I still racist to some degree. But my turning against Obama has nothing to do with race.One thing different with Obama and Clinton, is I wasn’t as aware of what was going on when Clinton was president . The reason I am more politically aware now is because of the internet. Clinton didn’t have as much internet going on as there is now

“Harris -Perry gets at a deep truth when she more or less says that blacks and whites don’t perceive things in a similar way even if we see and/or experience the same thing objectively.”

And the problem with her observation about DADT is her perception of racism seems to rest on a breathtakingly superficial understanding of the gay community and our relationship with Clinton, Obama, and the whole Democratic Party. Rather than pause–as a supposed “ally”–and try to understand the gay frustration with Obama, she preferred to just dismiss everyone as racist. So when does she apply her own observation about perceptions to her own limitations as a straight woman wallowing in heterosexual, procreative, matrimonial privilege? A good time would have been before defaming us all as racists.

Tit for tat leaves everyone blind…or however that saying goes.

When we tell you that the attacks are racially troubling, painful, we would like you to take our concerns seriously rather than working to simply defend yourself against the claims.

Myself, I have found some of the rhetoric of the Obama Administration dismissive of LGBT concerns and, on rare occasions, downright homophobic.

But are some of the attacks on Obama from the left racist? Yes.

Yeah…

I think that the substantial problem is that most of Harris-Perry’s empirical claims are either wrong or are based on false equivalencies. To begin, while Obama’s popularity has gone down substantially with white voters (as well as voters of color. I suspect that the President’s policies on immigration might be a substantial problem for reelection.), he’s actually quite popular with self-described liberal voters. If I remember correctly, his popularity is still around 80% and above. She additionally incorrectly compares Clinton’s reelection numbers with Obama’s polling numbers. There were a number of moments that Clinton’s popularity numbers were quite low, until the impeachment attempt.

“Since he can’t run on his record, which is abysmal, all Obama’s got is the race card. To let Obama off the hook for his ghastly neoliberal policies because he’s black is racist.”

Amen, sister.

Yeah, there’s so much calibration and recalibration that one has to do in order to compare Obama to Clinton.

Obama’s current poll numbers are Trumanesque, though.

Not the way I remember it

The Jackson comment was in context the comment that Obama’s forces had asked for group loyalty – much like Jackson – the actual quote: in Columbia, SC: in response to a question from ABC News’ David Wright about it taking “two Clintons to beat” Obama he said “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.”

A while before that, after NH and before SC, when not asking when she would cry again, the Obama forces (Clyburn), in an interview in The New York Times, had expressed disappointment in the Clinton campaign over what she had said as well as former President Clinton’s remark in New Hampshire about Obama telling a “fairy tale” in his opposition to the Iraq war.told folks she was a racist because she said LBJ could take some credit for the passage of the 64 and 65 Acts, not just MLK – Hillary then faulted chief rival Barack Obama’s campaign for twisting her comments about slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. – “I regret the way that this matter has been used,” Clinton told reporters. “The comments about it are baseless and divisive. I was personally offended at the approach taken that was not only misleading but unnecessarily hurtful.” She suggested reporters consider the sources of the criticism, much of which has come from the black community. “I think it clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign and I don’t think it’s the kind of debate we should be having in our campaign,” she said.

As to “all hard-working white people wouldn’t vote for Obama” – she never said that – long after the Obama race card play in SC, Hillary was asked about 5/7/08 poll in USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-07-poll-2008_N.htm and said as can be seen in the youtube video that she still had support – and rather in-artfully quoted from the actual poll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0&feature=player_embedded

Sorry – Obama played the race card, first and only, beginning with the NH defeat – with Clyburn leading the charge.

And to either note that fact – as with Bill and the Clyburn/Obama calls for group loyalty, or to repeated the USA Today poll analysis, as Larry Sabato noted was all she was doing at the time, is to be called racist by the racist in the Whitehouse and his supporters.

Of course some are. And had MHP offered a respectful argument about the affect of race (AND sexual orientation) on perceptions, her essay could have been a useful contribution. But she didn’t. She said Obama is better than Clinton; therefore, white gays who criticize Obama are racist. As I said, a good time for her to have taken her own advice about respecting perception concerns would have been before engaging in group defamation. Calling for respect for racial perceptions now just makes her a hypocrite. Let’s see her begin the process by unpacking the homophobia in her essay. I didn’t see a peep about that in her follow-up call for all this respect for perceptions. In fact, what I saw was a glorified “I have trans friends” defense.

Your right he is playing the race card, on one hand he says wink wink I cant do anything for blacks bcz it will look like I am playing favorites and on the other hand he winks at blacks and asks us to support him no matter what bcz he is black. He wants it both ways. As a black man who voted for him in 2008 I am not being racist in saying he has been a huge dissappointment and looks like he is not up to the job. You cant believe a word he says, you know he is never going to stand up to the republicans unless HIS JOB is on the line, and you know every decision he makes is based on political calculation not principle or convictions. He has been a mediocre president at best and yet he has the audacity to chastise blacks for holding him accountable. I cant wait to hear his concession speech in 2012.

Yeah, this type of essay would have been useful had she explained what those specific perceptions are and why blacks have them.

but here’s an example:

As to “all hard-working white people wouldn’t vote for Obama”

Yes Hillary was talking about a demographic and I believe that much of what she was attempting to do with that “hard-working white folks” comment was to get in another elitest dig at Obama…

Still, that comment pissed me off because Hillary was attempting to further her appeal to white voters (well, actually superdelegates and she was willing to use that loud dog whistle to do it).

And it’s really not for another white person to tell me that I didn’t receive that specific comment in the correct way. We can agree to disagree on that.

We occasionally read articles about Latino voters criticizing Obama. Or the LGBT community criticizing Obama. Or the black community. I get the impression that they stay silent on important socioeconomic issues that affect every single one of us (and may even adopt some Obama apologist stance of their own), but only get vocal when it’s something pertaining directly to them. It reminds me of the old quote that ends with “When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

It also reminds me of the time when I realized Obama wasn’t for the people and 2 of my friends were aggressively against my criticism of the health care law. One was a medicare recipient who admitted they loved their medicare, the other was under 26 and admitted they didn’t care because they were on their parents’ health insurance plan. Not only totally apathetic because it seemingly didn’t pertain to them (I now idly wonder what the medicare person thinks now that Obama seems more obviously bent on compromising or eliminating medicare), but aggressive toward those who would criticize.

I fear we see this with certain special interest groups, who I believe tend to stay silent most of the time, when their own interests aren’t threatened.

When I realized Obama was not a good president, I was against his policies wholesale (I admit I’m probably better equipped to debate health care or social class issues than the wide variety of issues where Obama has failed us) , because I then believed that Obama had no integrity. So when I criticize President Obama and the democrats, I try to say it for everybody in the United States. I think we all need solidarity to fight the evil perpetuated by our elected officials.

“Not the way I remember it.”

Would you like me to dig up the quotes? I’m sure I can.

Hillary and her “braintrust” were so frantic at watching the nomination that she had thought was hers, get away from them, that they were liable to say anything, and did.

She flacked for John McCain, in that statement about she and he having “commander in chief” experience, while Obama only had a speech. (a courageous speech, at that time…)

She endorsed Joe Lieberman in the Conn. Primary, and then, we got to watch Lieberman, while he actively campaigned WITH McCAIN.

She speculated about assassination as a reason she should stay in the race.

She stuck with the warbots on Iraq, until she saw it ruining her chance for the nomination.

It wasn’t all about her dog-whistle racism, but that was in the mix, too…

Whether you remember it that way, or not.

“As to “all hardworking white people wouldn’t vote for Obama.”

You’ve put up a straw dog, and you know it.

She didn’t say that, and neither did I.

What I did say (no quotes) was that Hillary claimed that hard-working white people wouldn’t vote for Obama. Which is true.

She cited a poll that “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working americans, white americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“there’s a pattern emerging here.”

If you think that statement isn’t racist, in it’s blatant appeal to ignorant WHITE peckerheads, then I don’t know why I’m even talking to you.

Bottom line, Papau:

Hillary Clinton is not going to be able to take advantage of Obama’s tanking presidency to make another run. And if, by some lunatic advice from someone else, she tries, she certainly won’t succeed.

I think you need to deal with that.

Interesting comments Pam especially, “Sorry, I have no interest in living under Republican rule”. Given that your governor is a democrat, what does that say about voting for dems?
It’s time to replace fear with principled convictions especially since your getting republican rule anyway with a dem governor. Add to that, the republican rule we get with BO and a senate whose majority is dem!

You bring up a good point about what happens at the local level (as opposed to national). The awful things in North Carolina would be happening even if a Republican was President. I think it’s a valid position to take that a Republican president would have difficulty dismantling Social Security because the Dems would hopefully fight that, whereas Obama has already shown he is willing to start dismantling SS and Dems, for whatever reason, have not been willing to challenge the Democratic President. So at the national level, the lesser of two evils could well be a Republican president. The side effect might just be that the Democratic party, in the wilderness after the incredible mandate they got just a few years ago, would figure out what they really believe in.

I think that state and local offices are the most important places to effect change at this time. That is where the most damage is being done and is part of a well-known strategy by conservatives to take control. It’s much easier to primary democratic candidates (incumbent or otherwise) at the local level than an incumbent President.

good memory tanbark.

I sometimes wonder, what would Gilliard say?

Though he was far from infallible, he cut through a lot of BS. No?

“What a Happy Coincidence!”

I don’t deny the existence of voters who are willing to help a Christian domininionist from the Republican Party take over as part of a carefully thought out strategy to get Americans good and sick of the religious right. However, I have a suspicion that there are also “liberal” voters who are dissembling, and whose refusal to vote for Obama is really based on their sexual angst/conflicts. That is to say, they are uncomfortable at the prospect of DOMA being repealed. They say: Nader-for-President, GreenParty-for-president, SocialistParty-for-President, write-in-campaign-for-Cher, etc. When reminded that this will help propel a Christian dominionist into the White House, their true feelings are: “What a happy coincidence! That’s exactly what I’d prefer. I’m no bigot (blah blah blah), but this LGBT equality thing has gone a little far for my personal taste. Put a few more Anthony Scalias on the Supreme Court, please.”

As you say, it’s your “suspicion”. And that’s all it is.

If you think that self-loathing and dishonest personal motives for political “positions” don’t exist, you don’t keep a very close eye on national politics. Hypocrisy is well-attested in American politics.

The fact that you put liberals in quotes implies that they aren’t liberal to begin with, so what’s your point?

It’s like saying liberals who aren’t liberal are not liberal. Well, I certainly agree with that.

I put liberals in quotes in order to refer to people who identify as liberals, but approve of government support of Christian sexual taboo. That includes a broad spectrum ranging from self-loathing to conflicted. I don’t think that phenomenon is unheard of.

I sometimes wonder, what would Gilliard say?

FTFY…? Being a Fenway fanatic…!

I fear we see this with certain special interest groups, who I believe tend to stay silent most of the time, when their own interests aren’t threatened.

Again, you fail to see that many of us cross multiple “special interest groups” — we don’t and shouldn’t have to choose which political identity we are at any given time (though I get enough criticism to have lost my “black” or “gay card revoked many times, for not following the particular special interest group line).

The fact is that when I (and others) write about how these intersectionalities make the polarization into specific interest groups basically irrelevant, the left (and the right) does a “la la la la I don’t hear you” because it makes the whole issue too difficult to paint a clear picture.

So I have to keep poking at this. What will it take for people to see the figurative black/white thinking for political jousting all along the political spectrum is a complete failure to understand (or digest) the real and changing world around them.

I wonder…

Will the host of ANY MSNBC evening or prime-time show discuss the comments of their pal, MSNBC guest, contributor (and, even HOST) Professor Melissa Harris-Perry in her piece in The Nation last week?

Chris Matthews? Larry O’Donnell? Rachel Maddow, maybe?

Because, when she speaks of “liberal electoral racism”…

She’s talking about the people here at FDL who routinely criticize President Obama.

Not only can’t conservative racists criticize the President…you racists can’t either.

One thing’s certain…

As far as Professor Harris-Perry is concerned…whatever your ideology…if you criticize the President…your motives are “suspect”.

Your assumption is that a progressive Dem could be elected Governor here at this time. Sadly, no, by national progressive standards. But we could do better than Perdue. But my point is that “under Republican rule” at the state and local level hits more people directly than a pontificating, prevaricating President.

Dems/progressives need to do what the right has done, put the energy and money into local and state races to groom more progressive candidates. It requires patience — something the right seems to have an endless amount of. The also have a built-in GOTV infrastructure – the evangelical church.

Yep, Steve was a hoss. Ferociously honest.

You’d have to beat him with a stick to get him to tell a lie.

As you say, I didn’t always agree with him, but so what? He could give and take rational counter, no problem; and when it was done, you’d love to sit down and have that beer with him.

A lesson there, for us all, in the coming fight over what to do about Obama.

Which reminds me; thanks again, Pam…for helping us kick things off.

)

Okay then, I’ll just say that if your suspicions are true, they only apply to a very small number of democratic voters. Remember, even blue dogs are generally more conservative on fiscal issues than they are on social issues. You’re getting at unconscious (or subconscious) motivation here. The winds of change on gender politics are blowing in a progressive direction, which makes it easier, psychologically, for an on-the-fence liberal to stand on the liberal side.

As for more Scalias, I would argue that if the next nomination is by a Republican president, Democratic senators should oppose any extremist nominee … y’know, like Republicans now do. I would hope that a moderate Republican would mellow in time, as we’ve seen in the past. The lesser of two evils meme is finally not winning me over this time around.

Just to be clear, I don’t deny that there are people like you describe, but I think their numbers are very small. I know a lot of liberals who are not progressives and I have not seen any evidence to support the idea that they would vote against lgbt equality. I also find it very hard to believe that those who say “Nader-for-President, GreenParty-for-president, SocialistParty-for-President” do so because of “sexual angst”.

Your quotes from these three pundits prove that the media and the so-called intellectuals, at least, are not yet ready for an honest discussion of this issue, despite the need for it.

With all due respect Pam, I actually believe progressive dems can win in NC. The problem for dems are that they have stopped articulating and acting on progressive values. There are probably plenty of North Carolinians who would love to see populist progressive/liberal things like universal healthcare, union support, living wages, etc. Equally as importantly, stop being afraid to wear the liberal/progressive label. In fact JFK once gave a speech on why he’s a liberal when asked. If you’re interested I’ll see if I can find that link.
Dems today barely talk about those issues much less act on them. Instead they continue to operate out of the trickle down Ron Reagan frame.

Sorry. While President Obama’s deck was dealt to him, his woes are largely self-inflicted, by his refusal to acknowledge 2-1/2 years ago — when everyone else in America realized it — that no matter how much he tried to appease the good ol’ boys and gals representing the former slave states of the Confederacy by abandoning almost every group that supported him, they really WERE serious in their plans to do nothing that would benefit him, regardless of the collateral damage to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

And despite a couple of speeches, which sound good (but then most of his speeches do, even when they are subsequently bereft of any meaningful action), I’m not sure that he YET realizes it. And I’m certainly far from convinced that he’s not going to cave again, as he has on almost every possible occasion.

While there were a number of reasons that motivated Ted Kennedy to try to unseat Jimmy Carter, racism certainly wasn’t one of them. To date, and sadly, there has been basically nothing that Barack Obama has done that would have caused Jerry Ford more than a minute’s hesitation — except that Jerry Ford did not give de facto blanket amnesty to all the criminals in the Nixon White House.

Yes, the lesser of the two evils has been a recurring meme, but a ballot in any election is really just a request for a voter’s preference, not a public statement of a voter’s approval. You’re correct about Senate Democrats blocking the most extreme Supreme Court candidates. However, I wouldn’t even describe Romney as moderate, let alone the other possible Republican victors in 2012. As far as a Republican president mellowing, what I would expect is not disaster but stagnation. The Hate Crimes Bill and DADT repeal both languished as impossibilities during George W. Bush’s eight years in office. That’s eight years of stagnation. Personally, I wouldn’t describe that situation as mellow, but other people might be fine with it.

Simple. “White liberals” aren’t disenchanted with President Obama because he isn’t white enough. They are disenchanted with him because he isn’t liberal enough!

Also, he was elected because he appeared to be a strong, inspiring leader but had been acting recently like he was cowering in fear of Tea Party threats. His approval ratings are and will continue to rise as long as he speaks up and takes action — as he returns to leading instead of begging Eric Cantor not to take his lunch money.

Let me fix this for you:;

It is truly unfortunate that so many prominent African-Americans feel the need to try to quash criticism of Obama by crying racism.

There is no wedge issue that either party or faction won’t pick up and use like some medieval weapon for their own benefit, while engaging in the same.

Mellisa Harris-Perry’s logic was flawed, she counts Obamas Health Insurance reform bill as some historic achievement while brushing over the complaints that it got from the left and right,(56% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law)
Here in this CBS poll, Jimmy Carter does consistently worse than Obama.

I can’t help thinking that she brushes over the concerns like HCR, ignoring predatory loans and lost retirement accounts, teacher union busting, etc.. is because of her own upper middle class.

“People who voted for Obama in 2008 to prove they were not racists should damn well be telling him to go fly a kite in 2012 to prove they’re not idiots.”

I swore I would never, ever use this acronym (or whatever you call them if you’re savvy), but . . . LOL!

Just to clarify, the moderate Republican I was referring to would be the Supreme Court Justice, not the President. In other words, assuming the Dems could block an extremist nominee, the Repub president (whoever it might be) would have to nominate a moderate. My hope would be this Justice would mellow over time.

Thanks for the good back and forth.

Of course progressives can win in NC – it’s been done before. Our state’s problem post-2008 is about GOTV. Progressive/moderate voters simply not showing up. The Dem Party chair David Parker is progressive by any stretch of the imagination, but we’re dealing with what’s always a problem – entrenched Dems, social conservative Dems, and progressives trying to make inroads. So yes, we’re succeeding at local levels, but the set back in 2010 has made it more difficult.

I think what you fail to understand is that while race and political party are convenient ways for the top 1% to divide and conquer, peeping out of the foxhole only when your particular needs are being threatened only makes your participation look like a trivial game of whack-a-mole. I don’t believe you can get anything done that way. The politicians, republican and democrat alike, are threatening the American middle class and either eliminate social safety nets or keep them even further out of reach. I think It’s time to make a greater show of numbers rather than merely crawling out of the woodwork when one group can’t say “I’ve got mine.”

I am sympathetic.

Symbolism is good, symbolism is important, and the symbolism of the first black US president is powerful and positive. Yet Obama is a centrist, and his economic, financial, and immigration policies fall harder on blacks, even, than most Americans. Obama remains extraordinarily popular with blacks. I am reminded of Reagan, who Obama admires, and who was popular with working class whites, and yet worked to impoverish them. Reagan was playing a role: I suppose he was greedy for adulation. I think Obama is similarly afflicted with the actor’s vanity: to him getting re-elected is more important than 15% unemployment.

Does the content of Obama’s character matter more than the color of his skin?

How long before we have both positive symbols and positive policies?

(Similar but remarks, and my ‘nym, which is the same as a long-time commenter’s, got me banned at a famous black editor’s blog.)

Further remarks…

In my defense against charges of racism, I wrote the following:

1. I believe that Obama is black.
2. I do not believe that he is a racist
3. I do not believe that attempting to primary Obama makes any sense at all. I think such attempts are doomed, and risk of putting the likes of Perry or Bachmann in the Oval Office.
4. If you read my blog, link, (but there is no need to do so) you will find that I started as sympathetic to, but skeptical of, Obama.

I also ended up adding:

anyone who uses these remarks in support of racism, to claim that Obama is racist, or to claim that I believe Obama is racist is twisting my words, and doing so without my support.

And:

Update, the following morning: I find the above incredibly sad. It is only one betrayal in a global pattern of betrayals: so many democratically elected leaders are acting against the interests and, often, the expressed will of their publics, but Obama was elected with so much hope and with so much love and–this?

Please do did up the quotes – you will find the time line one of the racist Obama

-seeing simple facts – it takes a Congress and a President to respond to MLK’s street actions – as screaming racism per Obama/Clyburn

You will find 4 months after SC he has not stopped, screaming that a reading of a poll that breaks out the category “working” into “black” and “non- black” and which is reported in USA TODAY – as screaming racism.

Indeed calling a non-racist a racist is a way to use racism to get elected. I grew up in Chicago – it is standard operating procedure for a group of politicians that I despised back then – and whose actions when repeated by Obama I still despise. Yes – I’ve been told that I do not see the situation as others see it – and that is correct. It does not mean I do not see what I am seeing.

We agree on the bottom line – pity – sad for the party and for those that want a more liberal progressive domestic policy that would protect FDR’s gifts.

We will get no challenge to Obama because, as Clyburn as recently said, – that would be racist.

Guess you don’t see that statement as playing the race card.

I do.

But we agree as to the bottom line – she will not run. Indeed we can agree that only Obama could put the electoral vote of SC in play – Hillary could not. Of course there are other states that might matter, but it is not important in our discussion.

I agree on every one of your points

Obama is not a racist – but he is willing to pretend he is seeing a racial insult so as to get votes, and to ignore real racial concerns so as to not lose those “independent” votes.

I see a Congress that will get a spine and stop the tear down of FDR’s security net, once they have a president they do not have to be loyal too. I therefore see Obama’s loss as a positive. Guess we disagree as to the best way to achieve a progressive result.

I hear ya Pam. IMO, the entrenched dems are really the biggest obstacle to overcome!

I happen to believe that Cain is in the position he is in for the same reasons Palin was the VP nominee…

…and for the same reason Steele was picked to head up the RNC.

That was a very safe vote for the three thousand-odd people who voted in that straw poll.