I am finally having to face a sad truth. Criticism is okay but vitriolic hatred is not. I refuse to

[mfcorey1]

just deal with it anymore. We fool the children of this country that someday they can grow up and become President. I have decided to never utter those words to a child again unless I preface it with if you are not black. I never throw the race card but the disrespect and hatred that is given to President Obama goes deeper than just policy issues. No one wants to admit the truth even though our European neighbors have already identified why there is such little respect for this Harvard honor graduate an extremely intelligent man. When I see the likes of Mitch McConnell, who pales in comparison, spewing pure hate with every word he says about the President, I know that I am not off base. The list is long but he is one the most vile.

Well, there is one thing that can not be erased and that history has to record Obama as the 44th President of the United States. It will become the duty of all griots in the diaspora to tell the truth to negate the lies that will flow. Until the lion tells his story, the tale of the hunt will continue to glorify the hunter. There are many times I have not agreed with the President on policy. However, I have always respected him as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services and the President of the United States of America.

I want him to seek a second term but if he chooses not to or circumstances put him in that position, it will not matter. More than anything, I want to see him with his family and enjoying life. Although service is the price you pay for the space you occupy, George Orwell writes that in our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”

[Beetwasher]

1. Yup, There's Never Been A President Held To A Higher Standard Or So Maligned

And no, Clinton didn't get half of what PO is getting, especially from people who should be on his side.

Criticism is fine, but the vile, empty slurs I see thrown around this place are unreal. Yeah, there are plenty of trolls here doing it, but that doesn't explain all of what's going on around here. It's disgusting.

[deaniac21]

13. Harry Truman would call you on that one.

[Beetwasher]

15. No He Wouldn't

Cuz he's dead, and even if he weren't I doubt he'd think he got a rougher deal than Obama. But feel free to pretend that you know what Harry Truman would do. Why don't you go dig him up and see if you can find out? :eyes:

Get back to me when you can find anyone who maligned Truman as a Muslim from Kenya who faked his birth certificate and hates America.

[deaniac21]

47. Give 'em Hell, Beetwasher.

[deaniac21]

14. Harry Truman would call you on that one.

[Beetwasher]

16. So Ridiculous You Had To Post It Twice?

[RainDog]

17. I was THRILLED to be able to vote for the first African-American president

it is just as bigoted to insinuate that all white Americans who have issues - because of ISSUES - are operating from racism as it is to say that all African-Americans believe x or y.

That said, yes, there is obvious racism - who hasn't seen this repulsive side of some Americans - but I think it's wrong to assume that people on the left who have disagreements based upon their understanding of what the Democratic Party claims they stand for vs. what we see A MAJORITY of democrats doing are motivated by racism.

It's not just Obama, iow. You hear (and rightfully so) tons of criticism of democrats like Evan Bayh, for instance, from the left. The criticisms are based upon his public pronouncements. You see criticisms of blue dogs across the nation.

To me, one HUGE difference is that this presidency is the first Democratic presidency of the internet era. Clinton's presidency ended before such a large number of Americans were online using graphical interfaces. Clinton's presidency was coming to an end when places like Salon and Slate were coming into their own. There was no DU when Clinton was president. No DailyKos.

Bush was the first "internet" president - his presidency marked a time that more Americans began to look for information about news outside of the U.S. in large numbers - because access was available - and because people were sharing information that showed the lies of the American media as they occurred. This was a first in history. There has never been anything like it before. Cheaper modes of production for documentaries also made it possible to make information available to a larger number of people because of changing technologies and hosting sites as well. The lesson people learned at this time was that, IN SPITE OF KNOWING THEIR LIES, those in power did whatever the hell they wanted and the American media continued to parrot their lies.

What you are also seeing is a HORRIBLE ECONOMY. Clinton's presidency had the benefit of the internet boom to cushion some of the blows of his policies like NAFTA. People who were losing their jobs during the Clinton era were, largely, among labor. Those who were benefiting from the internet boom were, largely, in white collar jobs.

NOW there are job losses across job sectors. Sometimes people live in their own little worlds and don't appreciate the suffering of others until they being to experience it for themselves. That's one reason media is there - to show people the world outside their little cocoons. That's how anti-poverty programs began in the 1960s, with RFK going to to the mtns of the southeast and the shotgun houses in Mississippi and SHOWING the American people the poverty that co-existed with great wealth. Now, the wealthy have apologists for their largesse - back then, people seemed to have more of a conscience and gave a damn - not the racists, of course. During this same time, the racists were out in force opposing EVERY change Democrats hoped to make to improve this society, however. Don't forget that. EVERY SINGLE CHANGE. JFK was called a commmie. People made posters calling for his assassination - so that hatred isn't confined to the current racists. On the other hand, the Democrats didn't make changes because they knew it was the right thing to do - they made changes because Americans were dying because the racists were coddled by the powers-that-be. People died in the streets of America to fight for anti-poverty programs and voter's rights.

While I don't blame Obama for the economy - I do think that he has not realized and responded to the urgency of the crisis in this nation for people who are losing everything because of the economic policies of the last 30 years that have favored the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. This is the same disconnect that politicians initially showed in the 1960s - the wish to avoid the confrontations that were inevitable because the powerful and the racists will not back down. They have to be beaten back to their caves. This is how it works, sadly.

People wanted Obama to recognize and respond to this crisis in a way that would put him at odds with Republicans - we want and wanted someone who would fight for the American people. We don't see this when he has seemed to make it an identifying feature of his presidency to talk about "bipartisanship." Norquist called bipartisanship "date rape." He represents the mindset of the Republican Party, as was evident when they held the Senate and tried to shut out Democrats from committee meetings during the Bush era to the current Republican strategy of undermining everything Obama does.

IMO, Obama took the wrong route. He should have come out as a fighter rather than a conciliator. The other side of the aisle, in the opinion of a VAST MAJORITY of the left in this nation, is not simply the opposition, they are our very enemies because they continue to tout policies that we KNOW are FAILURES. We don't want Obama to placate them and their failed policies. If someone calls himself a Democrat but supports the right wing in their policy issues - they are complicit with the enemy too, whether they see themselves in that way or not, because they are siding with those who hurt the vast majority of the American people.

People didn't vote for Republicans this term (or stay home this election cycle) because they support the Republicans' stupid economic policies (at least those who are aware of how bad they are - the truth is that most Americans are ignorant about this and don't even know how badly they are screwed by the rich.) Some voted for Republicans because they're angry that Democrats did not fight for policies that would benefit those who are not CEOs, banksters, Health Co. execs, Pharma execs... and, because of the time in which we live... people see and read about those compromises and they are pissed off - people cannot afford basic health care, people are shut out of affordable medicine... we didn't and don't want someone who goes into a negotiation giving the other side what it wants before asking for what WE want. We have two parties. If both of them seem to kowtow to corporations, people feel that voting doesn't matter, or they think a protest vote is the only way to send a message. They don't see enough difference between the two parties to think it matters... this is THE biggest reason people don't bother to vote. They don't think their vote matters.

I didn't follow this route myself, but I do understand why some people choose to do so - even if it doesn't make sense to me in many ways. Some people are to the point of giving up on American politics and political parties b/c the choices seem to be totally bought before any election occurs. I have talked about this with people where I live - and, honestly, they don't think it matters if they vote. That's a breakdown at the level of power, not at the level of the people.

It's an error of judgment to place any and all criticism on racism. Again, yes, there are far too many racists in this country. Far too many homophobes, too. You might also ask if the hetero male (no matter the color) fear of being associated with someone who is sympathetic to the cause of GLBT rights might make some people put off by the Democratic Party. I'm not GBL or T but I certainly understand the frustration. Maybe Obama miscalculated the amount of support he could garner by his attempt to placate the religious right in this nation at the expense of GBLT rights. Maybe those of us with a sense of history see the issue of GBLT rights as THE civil rights issue of our era and find it incomprehensible that a man whose own family faced the same sort of discrimination in laws concerning the rights of mixed race couples to marry can now not forcefully support the rights of the GBLT community with a straight face. Or a clean conscience.

It's wrong, iow, to associate every bit of anger or frustration you see in regard to the Obama presidency to race. It allows you to ignore the real issues people face at this time that they hoped would be addressed by removing Republicans from power. We had a Democratic majority in the legislature for four years, then the executive and legislature for two years - and the best we can do with that is capitulation to corporate bailouts and the religious right? THIS is why people are upset on the left - not because of the color of Obama's skin. People were upset with the legislature before Obama was ever on most liberal's radar as a presidential candidate.

Since the racists are going to be with us no matter what, it seems senseless to ignore the policy issues of those who support someone no matter the color of that person's skin... if you don't see that, you're blinded by your own assumptions.

To try to dismiss the concerns of the left as simple racism is to miss the entire point of their anger.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

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

[DCKit]

29. After eight years of Shrub, I was thrilled to vote for a competent President. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

42. +1

Thank you for expressing it so eloquently (as you usually do). I posted a MUCH shorter version downthread but you make excellent points.

[paulk]

51. well said

:thumbsup:

[racaulk]

58. Fantastic post!!!

Thank you for saying this, and I totally agree with all of it.

I'm also glad that I can't see the person you're responding to. Your reply completely justifies my decision to put them on Ignore.

:hi:

[AndrewP]

2. Looking at the big picture, I wonder if in 100 years this era...

will be looked at for it's rampant racism towards President Obama. Or will that fact be "underground history", written out of school books by the right wingers controlling the scholastic agenda.

I think President Clinton took a LOT of nonsense during his administration, as well as being the target of a right wing hatchet job. But I do fully agree that since it lacked the racial component it's not the same as what President Obama has to take.

By the way, I'm not saying nobody should be critical of the President's policies, lest you be called a racist. But I am saying there are absolute code words being passed around on a stunning level.

I wondered if this country was ready for a black President. It appears that it may not have been.

[mfcorey1]

5. Your last statement sums it up. This country will never be ready for a black President until the

likes of McConnell and LImbaugh have disappeared from the earth. Hopefully, their seed will have been sifted through a strainer.

[Angry Dragon]

7. I have thought much about your last two sentences

"I wondered if this country was ready for a black President. It appears that it may not have been."

My first thought was that showing a black man that cared about others would be good for race relations.
However, it seems that I was naive and it has turned into many in this country saying:
"I am letting some uppity black man telling me how to live my life"
We have not moved forward from 1964.

[Marr]

20. In 100 years, this era will be viewed through whatever lense supports the

views of the prevailing powers at the time. If we continue on the path we've been going down for 30 years, and the US is a retrograding land of robber barons in 2110, the leadership of this era will be seen as visionaries; people who broke down the remaining divisions between big business and government to help us arrive at our glorious state.

If we're in a more egalitarian era in 100 years, people will shrug their shoulders at this era and wonder why we kept doing the same things, letting the same corrupt interests interests run the show, and why so many of us were fooled by Wall Street into thinking we'd won, simply because their newest mascot happened to be black.

[elocs]

3. An interesting read, but to make it more easy to read try this:

We fool the children of this country that someday they can grow up and become President. I have decided to never utter those words to a child again unless I preface it with if you are not black. I never throw the race card but the disrespect and hatred that is given to President Obama goes deeper than just policy issues. No one wants to admit the truth even though our European neighbors have already identified why there is such little respect for this Harvard honor graduate an extremely intelligent man.

When I see the likes of Mitch McConnell, who pales in comparison, spewing pure hate with every word he says about the President, I know that I am not off base. The list is long but he is one the most vile.

Well, there is one thing that can not be erased and that history has to record Obama as the 44th President of the United States. It will become the duty of all griots in the diaspora to tell the truth to negate the lies that will flow. Until the lion tells his story, the tale of the hunt will continue to glorify the hunter. There are many times I have not agreed with the President on policy. However, I have always respected him as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services and the President of the United States of America. I want him to seek a second term but if he chooses not to or circumstances put him in that position, it will not matter.

More than anything, I want to see him with his family and enjoying life. Although service is the price you pay for the space you occupy, George Orwell writes that in our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”

Old eyes appreciate paragraph breaks. :bounce:

[mfcorey1]

6. Noted. Thanks.

[JNelson6563]

4. Well said.

[Old Codger]

8. Has always been

Pure and simple no matter how hard they try to pretend otherwise, he is black and they cannot accept a black man in his position...

[The Second Stone]

9. President Obama is proof that

a black man without a father can grow up to be President. He doesn't have it easy, and yes, his opposition is criticizing him because he is black. But in the 63 years since Jackie Robinson became the first black baseball player, a lot has changed. Obama has it much easier than Robinson. I am firmly convinced that Obama is using Robinson as a model, and it is the right thing to do.

The fact that Obama is President and is a black man is a huge step forward for this country. That he is a man of first rate character personally is a godsend. Do I agree with everything Obama does and the way he does it? Hell no, but I haven't walked ten feet in his shoes. Hell, I haven't even stepped in them.

[Kweli4Real]

74. You know????

You make a very good point, RE: President Obama using a Jackie Robinson Model. The hallmark of Jackie Robinson's major league experience was his constant reaching out to those spitting in his face and calling him all kinds of vile names (and his refusal to openly strike back at those he could have easily crushed). But unlike like President Obama, Jackie Robinson's concilitory approach was heralded as a sign of great strength.

But Robinson and President Obama know what every Black person knows, but few white people (except maybe white women in the corporate world) will acknowledge, in America, any show of force by a Black person will not be seen as "courage" or "force of conviction or principle", but rather, will serve as evidence of the dismissive, "Angry (read: scary) Black Man." And as such, will not only result in his/her immediate rejection, but will foreclose on any future advances for those behind him/her.

Those of us who are honest will have to admit that we have all watched as that first Black (or female) associate who fought for, or even expressed a strong opinion on, anything was isolated and ultimately dumped, for being "too loud", "too emotional", or "just not a good fit." While we knew EXACTLY what was being said, we were comfortable because the criticism was not preceded by the phrase "that Black guy/gal ..."

And BTW, arguing "it's not all of us", does not help matters; it merely gives cover to those who it is all about.

[hfojvt]

10. "no one wants to admit the truth"

Are you joking? It is just about all the liberal blogosphere has talked about since day one. If not day one of the campaign when Biden was a racist, Bill Clinton was a racist, Geraldine Ferraro was a racist. It's almost impossible to oppose or criticize Obama without somebody crying racism.

[mfcorey1]

11. If that is all that you gleaned from my post, then it saddens me even more. nt

[hfojvt]

22. What was I supposed to have gleaned?

It seemed like the 10 billionth charge of racism to me.

.

[FrenchieCat]

12. You can put everyone White that ever said anything about Obama under one umbrella if you wish....

but that certainly wouldn't be telling the truth....

cause yes some used Obama's race against him during the 2008 campaign....
which doesn't mean they themselves were racists....simply that they were willing to
use the prejudice they know exists in others to their own advantage.....
Let me repeat....Not racist (Clinton) but using racism (Clinton) is exactly what happened in many cases.

Geraldine Ferraro went out on the limb a bit further. Was she racist? Hard to tell....
but her whistle were easy to hear.

As for whom is "crying" racism.......?
The part you missed is if the subject of discussion (in this case Obama)
comes from a race of people that have been discriminated against
for hundreds of years, and called every name in the book and then some,
then one has a right to comment on the FACT that there are still many, many folks
who would rather die of shame and embarassment than to see their daughter or son
come home announcing their upcoming marriage to a Black person, let alone accept that
the most powerful person in the world and the leader of the free world today
also happens to be Black.

So, no matter how many deny it......just like many White people would rather not have their children attend school where the majority of the students are Black, and/or live in an area where most of their neighbors are Black, when they themselves are not, many don't find the idea of truly respecting a Black man to be our President. You might call that something else and not racism, but you would not be telling the truth.

[hfojvt]

21. "many is a word that only leaves me guessing

guessing about a thing, I really ought to know."

That seems like a very fine line though too. So some people are willing to use racism, or make racist comments even though they are not racist. http://www.slate.com/id/2186553/

I am not at all denying that some people really do not like the idea of a black President. That would be absurd, but it is also absurd that we want that number to be extraordinarily large, to the point where it's larger than the group that really does not like the idea of having a liberal President. Remember what the headline said on DU's greatest page? It said "White America has lost it's mind" and some even replied in the thread that this applied to white DUers as well.

We on the liberal web seem to love to expand the group. It's not just some. It's "many, many". Why don't you just say "almost all" if that is what you mean? Maybe we should remember that 42 million white people voted for Obama. It is just not a helpful thing to always be flinging around the accusation of racism, and it seems to be our favorite play.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Many of us don't give a shit about the truth being a favorite play....

and perhaps you should examine why so many do believe that racism is a factor,
while you sit there calling this sore that has been festering in our country
for hundreds of year an "excuse" used too often.

The media has made being a racist a sexy thing to be in 2009-2010, if you hadn't noticed.
and it doesn't have to come in the form that you would envision it,
but the results are the same--

The fact that Obama is given very little credit for his accomplishments,
is ordered around all of the time by all sides,
is told that he should be a ganster, kick ass, pound on tables and refuse to
work with all of congress is telling because it ain't anything that anyone ever
ordered Clinton to do, and Clinton wasn't an ass kicker, if you try and recall,
he was an appeaser, a compromiser, a triangulator, but no one seem to gave a fuck,
as he was defended by all quarters of the Democratic party on a daily basis,
and agressively at that. Why do you think CNN was called the Clinton News Network?
Black folks defended him too......and never ever backed down to say...hey, What the fuck,
Clinton....what's this about Welfare Reform? No, instead of hating Clinton for the things
that they disagreed with (NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, etc., etc., etc...)
most Democrats circled that wagon and attacked Republicans foricefously.....
for attacks against the Clintons.

BUT WE DON'T DO THAT WITH OBAMA who, for the past 21 months,
has been held to an impossible standard of having to be literally perfect on not only some issues, but on all issues....because anyone he ticked off on what they didn't like, has actually trashed Obama like nobody's business day in, day out, on every-fucking-thing that they just didn't bother to minimize.
Health care = Not good enough,
Financial Reform = Not good enough,
Credit Card reform = Fuck that...where's my 10% interest?,
Student Loan reform = I'm yawning, until my loan is fucking forgiven,
DADT = Should have been done years ago, so Fuck Obama,
Saving the Auto Industry = Fuck that, I don't give a fuck unless he wouldn't have saved it,
Nuclear Arms Treaty = No big fucking deal,
20Billion from BP = It was his fault there was a leak in the first place,
Appointing Good solid Female/minority Judges = That's what he's supposed to fucking do, so no kudos,
Making Money From TARP = I hate Geithner, and everything....give me nationalism of whatever,
The Stimulus = saved the economy from a free fall, but hey.....I ain't got exactly what I need to feel comfy,
Getting out of Iraq = Fucking yawn me a river, we ain't all of the way out yet,
Reducing the Deficit = I don't give a shit! That's not putting food on my table or paying my mortage,
.....
In otherwords, it doesn't matter what he has done....it only matters what he hasn't still yet done,
and if everyone would stop kicking him to the curb, and started doing what they did for Clinton in his 8 years, perhaps, then perhaps then we can talk about how this man is given credit and that the
entire country isn't blaming him for every fucking thing at all times.


before folks believe that he has done something worth appreciating--
All of this tells a good deal...and yes, even many white DUers get it, even if you don't.

[hfojvt]

25. "the truth"

except it is not the truth. It is played on the flimsiest of excuses.

That nobody criticized Clinton, is certainly not true if you read the Tom Tommorrow cartoons of that era. Tom had Clinton as a worm in his cartoons. Except back in the Clinton era, hardly anybody had the internet. I certainly didn't and thus had never heard of Tom Tomrrow, much less read on of his cartoons. There was no blogosphere in those days, and thus no way for Joe to run off to Firedoglake.

Still, I, at least, was annoyed enough to not vote for Clinton in 1996, and the country annoyed enough so that he also got hammered in the 1994 midterms. In fact, many of us on the critical left took our anger out at Bill on Hillary and thus were Obamabots in the primary election.

Clinton, however, did not face anything like the Bush recession either. In Clinton's first six months in office, a million jobs were created in the economy. In Obama's first six months a million jobs were lost. And the President, just like Beetle Bailey, always gets blamed for everything. That was a Beetle Bailey cartoon from the Carter years, and I well remember Carter being villified by the M$M. I joke with my co-worker who took my job, that that job is Presidency of the Community Center, because he, much like the President, will get blamed for everything. The economy is still uncertain, gas prices are still high (unlike the later Clinton years when they went down, down, down.) so the President is not gonna be popular no matter what race he is. It just isn't always about race.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Clinton presided over a Dot.com bubble, and to this day, it ain't called that.

and to this day, there are those who believe that Race just isn't a factor in the Obama presidency.

I would tell those that they are wrong about that.....

and so we will have to agree to disagree....
as I can't make you Black so that you can experience what subtle racism is.
But I'll tell you, it is there.....period.

[hfojvt]

27. period is never a very convincing argument

I have eyes and I can see.


and again, I never said that race is not a factor. However, it is not a controlling factor, it's not the only factor, it's not the main factor, and it's not something that we should spend so much our time talking about because there is nothing we can do about it and it does not accomplish anything to keep talking about it.

[patrice]

36. What gets me is the demands that he do it all, while people do little more than kibbitz from

the sidelines.

How many call/email/sign-petitions to congress in support of their issues and policies?
How many worked for candidates who would support the President in the last election?
How many go to Democratic party meetings, become precinct people or chairs?
How many run for office?
How many volunteer as community organizers?
How many write LTTEs or call in to ANY radio talk-shows?
How many talk about issues politely with their friends and families?
How many have held signs on streetcorners?
How many have made phone calls to the electorate about an issue?

No, the sum total of lots of people's ideas of DOING something about their own demands, here on the DU and elsewhere, is to get on the internet and play mind games under phony names and to write over-wrought, ego inflated, stuff making grandoise over-simplified statements about infinitely complicated situations in which ALL of the issues interact and then to form a single absolute conclusion for all time about the whole thing from their limited external perspective. :puke:

[Fruittree]

37. You/re seeing exactly what I'm seeing and I dread the

consequences at the next election..

[patrice]

40. It's ironic that this do-nothing attitude is exactly what each side, left and right, criticizes

the other for.

The Left says the Right does nothing constructive about government so that it will fail.
The Right says the Left wants the government to do everything for them and to do nothing for themselves.

They're both proving each other correct right now.

[patrice]

43. They have a Self-fulfilling Prophecy goin' on: Make a prediction; Act in a manner that is

consistent with your prediction; thus causing your prediction to come true; say I told you so to others; they join you, thus further reinforcing the whole dynamic.

This IS their, left and right, base-building strategy.

"The President is bad. He will fail. Bitch. Bitch. Bitch. We won't DO anything to help the President", ergo the president fails and then they say to themselves and others, "See? We were right. He was a bad President, so he failed."

[hfojvt]

60. I know you are not talking about me.

Considering that I ran for office in Kansas.

[patrice]

39. I just realized that they don't care that they CAN'T deliver success either.

These people, left and right, are criticizing the President and trying to make him a one-termer, not because they have even the remotest chance of doing better on anything about which they are attacking him. They attack him on this or that, but they can't deliver on this or that either and they know it, so this is ***ALL*** about wanting the Obama presidency to Fail. Period, not about anyone doing the job any better. I just realized that.

[BeFree]

45. True

There is great sentiment for taking Obama down.

But it comes from different angles. Some criticism is just because he is a Democrat and because he
is black. Some comes from the reality side that recognizes the looming problems and have seen no
political success in finding solutions.

And most of it comes from bad PR. The media wants Obama to fail. Most media really does want a
headline that takes down the president because it makes them feel big: ie David and Goliath.

What we are witnessing is the nature of politics, and the misuse and abuse of politics mainly from
one side. Meanwhile, most of the people are resigned to their own personal failure of not being able
to do anything about what's going down.

So they don't even vote. :puke:

[patrice]

68. We agree. How do we get people to understand this???? - FOR THE SAKE OF THE VERY ISSUES THAT

they are bitching about????

[BeFree]

73. Someone told me...

...give the people a REASON to vote.

WTF?

Their rights are on the line, their taxes, their security. Their whole damned country is on the line.
Their entire lives are effected by politicians, and they beg from us a reason to go vote?

We are so screwed. We are screwing ourselves when just 40% of us bother to take a few minutes and vote.

[patrice]

75. It's that mental passivity that's killing U.S. I am sick and fucking tired of "the Profesional Left"

or WHOEVER they are, screaming for the President to do this or that.

Personally, I will work with no one who can't figure out what needs to be done, and do as much as they can, themselves.

I'm not in a place to deal with children in my life and work.

[BeFree]

77. It is frustrating

So many times I have stood pleading the case for the right thing and when I sit down and look around, there is no one else going to the mic.

Basically, the people are just ^bleeped^ --- like you say, children.

And then you get the children who are in charge of the party supporting someone like bush. Grrr.

[patrice]

79. Ha, ha, . . . bet you're not part of the in-crowd either!The cool-kids do not like to question their

Coolness.

:hug:

[closeupready]

50. Amen.

n/t

[mmonk]

18. Yes, I've had it as well.

I see no reason to cower or not face it anymore. It is a problem in this country.

[Brewman_Jax]

23. The country is far from "post-racial"

racism didn't end with the election of a black man as President. :(

[BlueCheese]

28. I disagree.

Do you remember the things they said about Clinton? They really thought he had Vince Foster killed. They thought he wanted to renounce his citizenship in Moscow. They had hundreds of hours of sworn testimony on a freaking Christmas card list. They impeached him, for crying out loud.

The idea that nasty criticism of the president is something new is wrong. And blanket charges of racism here and there are a great way to get your opponents elected.

[FrenchieCat]

30. The difference is that Clinton was defended by his "Base".......

and the Republicans were kicked in the ass.....

Now, many on our side pile-on to Republican talking points,
with some of their own....making the pile just that much higher
to those voters that will decide it all.....

[patrice]

33. I have about had it, FrenchieCat. : - ((((((((((((((((((((((((~

[Fruittree]

35. I agree...

There's something very different about the way Pres. Obama is attacked. I can't quite put my finger on it or even describe it but there's a disrespect that I've never seen before.

[Nye Bevan]

31. "unless I preface it with if you are not black".

Isn't Obama proof that a black child can grow up to be President? So why would you tell a child that they can only be president if they are "not black"? What am I missing here?

[patrice]

32. Race is a big factor, but what's really driving this is the extremes, left & right, see an

opportunity for base-building, so they're taking it, no matter what that costs Americans.

Though I agree with almost everything that is said about the corruption of a 2 party system that is owned and run by transnational corporations, I disagree with how some people have decided to change that, especially in trying to destroy this President at this particular time.

Those who want Obama to be a one-termer may be right about why they are doing what they are doing, but they CAN'T deliver anything but destruction, suffering, and death. The success of their fantasies about a 3rd party or somekind of revolution, IF ever achieved, require a timeline that is going to be decades long, meanwhile the at risk and vulnerable continue to pay the price for our inflated egos and narcissism.

I'm seriously considering giving-up politics. Can't stand the bullshit anymore, especially from people I, otherwise, agree with.

[Fruittree]

34. Nice post! recommended...

[Le Taz Hot]

38. I'm sorry, but I had to unrec. and this is why.

I think DUers, progressives, GBLTQIA (did I get all of the initials?), women and other groups have legitimate complaints about this president. I don't need to itemize as I think we're all familiar with those disappointments. I'm critical of Obama. I was critical of Bill Clinton. I'm a leftist lefty left since 1968. Hell, I thought Hubert Humphrey was too much of a party insider.

If the assertion that any criticism of Obama is racist, how are we to hold an open discussion? He's president and as such he is subject to scrutiny from the electorate, just like any other president.

Now, I don't deny that the racists are coming out of the closet in droves but they were always racist. For whatever reason, they seem to feel more empowered to come out of the closet now. But to equate THAT kind of hatred with criticism of Obama is disingenuous and it quells discourse, don't you think?

[patrice]

41. Many of us yeild that there are things to complain about this President. What I dispute

is what effective action would be to correct what's wrong and to make use of what is right. And what I'm seeing ain't that.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. I agree

There are the same numbers and degrees of racists as there has always been. They're just louder and more overt now. Conflating racism and criticism does little more than stifle discussion.

[patrice]

76. They ARE conflated in some instances. The tasks are to differentiate which instances those are from

authentic constructive criticism.

To me, the hallmark of the latter is the W-O-R-K that usually co-relates with such and, thus, provides the empirical base for its authenticity, with the caveat, of course, that co-relation is NOT necessarily causation, so, though authentic, said constructive criticism, like anything else, is inherently flawed to some degree.

[durkermaker]

55. any student of history knows that LBJ was so hated by 1968 that he dropped out

JFK's VP in 1960

was it because he was white?

because he pulled beagle ears?

no - it was because he sent kids to viet nam, and returned them home in boxes

for no good reason

[Greyhound]

44. K&U for an overly simplistic blanket generalization.

There can be no doubt that racism is a major factor for much of the hatred directed at him, but there are also many legitimate grievances against his failure of leadership and one-sided policies.
:kick: & U

[The Uncola]

48. "I never throw the race card"

'Cept when you throw the race card.

Good fucking grief, I have never once dissed on Obama because of his race, in fact, quite the opposite. EVER.

Quit fucking whining that he's the only President to get cheap shots, IT HAPPENS TO ALL OF THEM, it's part and parcel. If he wants to be Prez, then he sure as fuck needs to put on his big boy pants and act like it. This pissypants whining by his adoring apologists isn't doing him any favors. It merely makes it appear he can't stand the heat.

My bitches with Obama are PURELY with his lack of courage to stand up for working (IF you are lucky enough to have a fucking job) everyday Americans. Your attempt to make it a race thing is pathetic.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. +1000!

[closeupready]

49. Unrecced.

I think most people have been very, very fair with their criticism of Obama.

Falling back on the lazy cliche that racism is always to blame is silly.

[October]

59. Racism is a lazy cliche?

Wow. That type of attitude is why it goes on and is excused. Same with marginalizing women, gays, etc.

[closeupready]

61. Sometimes, yes, charging racism is indeed lazy cliched way of dismissing opposition.

Are you disputing this?

[durkermaker]

67. Indeed, it's a new incarnation of 'McCarthyism'

where you just smear someone with a label when you dont feel like debating them

I'm sure there have been people who have piously lectured others about the McCarthy era, but have also smeared someone with a false charge of racism, and not caught the irony of it

[October]

84. I'm disputing it, yes

Racism is racism.

The new racism seems to be to claim that all cries of it are false.

[ProfessorGAC]

62. Most People? Or Most People Here on DU?

Because if you think the former, than you aren't paying attention.
GAC

[closeupready]

63. Most people here on DU have been fair.

More generally, yes, there is racism directed at him, I concede that.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. OK

I had a hard time believing you meant people in general. And, in general, i don't think criticsm has been fair, because much of it is untrue, much of it has been based upon ignorance of facts, or is simply race-based.

Here on DU, there is little ignorance of the facts. I don't agree with all the criticisms of Obama i see here on DU, but i agree that it's mostly fair and essentially civil.
GAC

[patrice]

69. Do you deny that it could be the driving core around which many other ideologies are orbiting?

[closeupready]

71. A few, but not many. Such as perhaps the Tea Party.

And maybe Rand Paul's libertarian minions, but overt racism is unacceptable just about everywhere in America now.

What other ideologies do you believe are being driven by racism today?

[patrice]

72. There are no physiological nor functional walls in the processes we are referring to here.

Of course, true Racists would be covert around anyone but those they trust, that's an especially easy thing to do on the internet.

My reference to Racism as a driver has to do with the depth and intensity at which it is "wired," as such it is one of the most durable of motivators when most all other motivators, more highly associated with other issue groups, have become somewhat obfuscated by political and social circumstances. Hence, Race would require the fewest number of apostles, acting with longitudinal continuity, under easily identifiable principles for secrecy and subversion, to have the most effect.

[durkermaker]

53. 'if you are not black' - have you been in a coma since 2008? nt

[durkermaker]

54. when you go to India and praise outsourcing as a 'job creator' for Americans

when high unemployment/long term unemployment is being discussed as 'The New Normal', the criticism is going to be a bit pointed, no matter what color you are

quit hiding behind 'his race'

'he's doing all he can, be patient' and 'outsourcing helps americans' does NOT FLY!!!!

[ljm2002]

56. It is really true...

...the level of vitriol for Obama and his Presidency are way out of control.

It saddens me. Like you, maybe even more so, I do not agree with everything he has done (and not done). But he is our President and deserves the "respect of the office" that is always touted during Republican presidencies but that suddenly seems not to matter when it is a Democrat in the office, much less now that it is a black man.

The other day I had an argument with an acquaintance who claimed that Obama's inaugural speech included a statement that "this is a Muslim country". So I went and looked up the official transcript, and of course there was no such statement, just one acknowledging that we are a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. But he would have none of it, the written transcript was lying, he remembered what he had heard. In my opinion, he remembered what Fox told him he had heard. But you can't convince anyone that they have been brainwashed, they must come to that realization all by themselves. All you can do is keep chipping away using the truth as a pickaxe.

What is really ironic is that the people who hate President Obama picture him as a radical wild eyed leftist when that is far from the truth. He is rather more of a centrist / corporatist with some compassion thrown in to moderate some of the hard edges of strict capitalist ideology.

The most frightening thing to me is that these days, Truth is not only silenced but beaten to the ground. The liars have taken hold and are not about to let go. So many are in thrall to the lies, and their lizard brains have taken over. I'm not saying that everyone on the left (what's left of it, no pun intended) is a beacon of light, nor that everyone on the right is a bad person. It's just that prejudices and fixed ways of thinking and sorting it all out based on wildly inaccurate information is not a recipe for enlightenment. Quite the opposite in fact. We are heading for a modern variant of the Dark Ages, where ignorance is celebrated and knowledge is suspect and the policies based on ignorance serve to perpetuate the bad situation.

[mfcorey1]

65. Thank you for understanding what I was trying to convey. I never indicated that the President could

not be criticized as I have often done that myself. He must be held accountable for his term in office. I never said that everybody who is of another race is on a course of hatred. So many have felt insulted because that is the inference they took from the post. I simply indicated that aside from differences with his policies. there are some who hate the man because he is black. Amazingly there are some African Americans who hate him because he is black. I am so liberal that everything I like is blue. However, I remember when George Bush was in a foreign country and a journalist threw a shoe at him. I was upset that the President of the United States was so disrespected. Mind you, I have never agreed with George Bush and think he needs to be before a war tribunal. But I did not condone The President of the United States being disrespected because that will become acceptable for whomever is in office. It is amazing to me the different interpretations of what my post meant, but we can still agree to disagree until the new Republican majority in House takes it away from us.

[durkermaker]

57. Pompous rhetoric juxtaposed with corporatism does not inspire 'love'

from those getting the shaft

[patrice]

78. Speaking of pomposity. Look up the definition of ego inflation. How much, exactly, of the totality

of our situation are you acquainted with that, then, justifies the absolute characterization of the President that you just delivered?

Simply put, it appears justified to ask: who died and made you "God"?

I really REALLY want to know why you are so certain about something about which you likely know next to nothing compared to the person in the role that you are judging. Please, please tell me HOW this is possible. I really am asking you for an answer.

Honestly, I really, really do need to understand HOW anyone can say what you have just said, without assuming powers of discernment that you quite likely DO NOT HAVE.

One very probable answer to my question is that you have an agenda that makes you self-righteous, that you feel entitled to your un-founded conclusions, just like those who fucked-up America so horribly. Correct me if I am wrong.

[grahamhgreen]

64. He shall go down in history as a moan who proved that America had gone beyond race, and failed

the majority that proved it.

This not about race - if it were, he would never have been elected. it is about class warfare. He has come down on the side of the monied interests, that is where the crux of the criticism lies.

If he can not step up to the plate for those that brung him to the dance, so be it.

Let that be his legacy.

[patrice]

70. Do you deny that saying/behaving that way makes it so? Ergo YOU are creating the problem

that you claim to abhor?

[grahamhgreen]

81. Has nothing to do with race - it is a class war that is being waged against us.

[patrice]

82. 0? - That's quite a claim you have there. How do you explain all of the empirical evidence?

Maybe it has 0 to do with Race in your instance and possibly with those with whom you associate.

But it clearly appears to have much to do with Race in OTHER instances.

Which factor is more powerful? Race? - or - Social-Economic Class?

Probably depends upon the person at the micro-level and upon the situation at the macro-level, but I will guess that SES is the more frequent determiner at higher levels of organization, but I think it is necessary to remember that those higher levels are built out of individual/micro instances.

[patrice]

83. BTW, you know, of course, that there is no such thing as 0. nt

[grahamhgreen]

85. I stand corrected. It has LITTLE to do with race.

[patrice]

87. "It MAY have little to do with race." and even if it does have "little" to do with race, from a

broadly valid enough of a perspective, even the tiniest thing CAN be THE thing that creates a critical mass.

[Mona Blue]

80. Very well said.

Very very well said.

[October]

86. Now Palin is stirring up racism, too...

So disturbing...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/sarah-palin-michelle-obama-book-america-by-heart_b_785784.html