Gene Lyons compares Melissa Harris-Perry to the KKK and Michelle Bachmann!

[EffieBlack]

This just in: Not all the fools are Republicans. Recently, one Melissa Harris-Perry, a Tulane professor who moonlights on MSNBC political talk shows, wrote an article for the Nation titled "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama."

See, nobody ever criticized Bill Clinton, another centrist Democrat who faced a hostile Republican congress. Indeed, he was "enthusiastically re-elected" in 1996. Therefore, "{}]he 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism."

The professor actually wrote that. See, certain academics are prone to an odd fundamentalism of the subject of race. Because President Obama is black, under the stern gaze of professor Harris-Perry, nothing else about him matters. Not killing Osama bin Laden, not 9 percent unemployment, only blackness.

Furthermore, unless you're black, you can't possibly understand. Yada, yada, yada. This unfortunate obsession increasingly resembles a photo negative of KKK racial thought. It's useful for intimidating tenure committees staffed by Ph.D.s trained to find racist symbols in the passing clouds. Otherwise, Harris-Perry's becoming a left-wing Michele Bachmann, an attractive woman seeking fame and fortune by saying silly things on cable TV.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2011/09/28/obama_fights_republicans

Unbelievable!

An excellent response by Elon James White:

You can like Dr. Harris-Perry’s theory or not, but 1) its a theory not an etched in stone condemnation and 2) it’s based in reality. It’s based in feelings many in the Black community have wondered when hearing attacks from White liberals. It’s based in issues that have been previously pointed out within the progressive movement. You could make the argument that race has nothing to do with White liberals issues with Obama and I wouldn’t have an issue with that. But to dismiss one of the great Black public intellectuals of our time because it made you feel uncomfortable is completely ridiculous.

And that’s the problem. Dr. Harris-Perry made folks feel uncomfortable.

White liberals enjoy the concept that they are immune to accusations of racism. They’re LIBERALS. They obviously are totally and completely not racist so how could you ever dare even pose the possibility of such a thing? Matter of fact? Since White liberals are so “obvi” not racist they can dismiss this feeling amongst Black folks as silly and tell them to stop it. You can even get all Dave Sirota on us and say how this hurts the civil rights movement. Because questioning the possibility of racism obviously makes equality harder right? Thanks sir!

. .

Lyons actually wrote that. To question possible racism is to be the photo-negative of the KKK. To dare question White folks who were nice enough to treat you almost fairly is to be the Black equivalent of the KKK. And to possibly question race is only helpful in gaining tenure–because you know. Blacks and tenure at colleges? We gotta play that race card right? And PHD’s find race in everything. It’s not that they might have studied history and race long enough that they actually understand the systemic problems within our society based on race and privilege–they just see it in EVERYTHING. Silly educated people.

Lyons compared the Scholar Harris-Perry to the publicly mocked known idiot Michelle Bachmann. How did Lyons think that was going to work out? You mock the concept that as a White man you might not always understand everything about racism, then you degrade a brilliant Black mind and compare her to a wilful White idiot who has said websites full of dumb shit. Oh yeah. You’ve just won me over. White Liberals are sooooooo not racist.

http://newsone.com/nation/elonjameswhite/salon-melissa-harris-perry-kkk/

[Blue Owl]

1. Gene Lyins' can shove his "journalism" up his ass

from whence it came...

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. +1000. I'm so glad you used quotes.

"journalist" indeed. :thumbsup:

[Hoosier Daddy]

15. Amen

Thread unrecced.

[Paka]

83. Why should you unrec it?

This is a conversation long overdue. Idiots like Lyons need to be exposed. Facts need to be faced and racism, like all other evil isms needs the corrective power of sunlight. :shrug:

[treestar]

2. Anyone who does not see the President being held to a higher standard is blind

Maybe I just don't remember the wailing in disappointment of the left during the Clinton Administration. Clinton was criticized by conservatives.

[CakeGrrl]

8. +10,000. EXCUSES are being made for the negative things done during the Clinton era

in service of denigrating this President.

The motivators are clear as day to me.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

54. Clinton’s Not-So-Good Deeds - March 21, 1995

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=clintons_notsogood_deeds

That took me mere seconds to find.

Refresh that poor memory of yours by Googling MediScare, trade agreements, and repeal of Glass-Steagall. The Nation, Slate and Mother Jones would be good starts.

[MNBrewer]

60. Don't ruin their carefully constructed narrative!!

[rury]

55. Absolutely. If not blind then flat-out dishonest.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

58. Bullshit. Spend some time Googling "Clinton and liberal criticism."

The Obama-can-do-no-wrong crowd does not get to re-write history.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Melissa Harris-Perry is becoming a punchline

What a shame. She has ruined her reputation with that piece she wrote and she has definitely hurt her career. She was so promising too.

[ProSense]

5. Seriously

"Melissa Harris-Perry is becoming a punchline What a shame. She has ruined her reputation with that piece she wrote and she has definitely hurt her career. She was so promising too."

...WTF? She "ruined her reputation" for making a valid point and deserves to be compared to the KKK?

Or is your comment in response to a different OP?

[Cali_Democrat]

11. She doesn't deserve to be compared to the KKK. n/t

[Paka]

85. Thank you ProSense. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

6. ...

:rofl:

And there's NOTHING wrong with the screeds excoriating her, right? They're all totally reasonable reactions. They sure made a joke out of that "arrogant" black woman.

Tell me, do you feel the same way about Cornell West's claims about POTUS' shortcomings as a 'real' black man? Do you feel he's landed in the punchline column?

[EffieBlack]

10. SHE ruined her reputation?

Are you serious?

How interesting that a black woman says that some white progressives may be racially biased and she's viciously attacked, accused of dividing the country and blamed for "ruining her reputation."

But a white man attacks her personally, belittles her in print and compares her to the Ku Klux Klan and one of the more despicable Republican nutcases and the same people who were SO horrified that she had the nerve to criticize some white progressives blame HER for being smeared?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Number23]

57. But surely you're not surprised. They also blame Obama for being the recipient

of racism, no matter where it comes from. When he is abused or mistreated whether it be from conservatives or liberals, it's HIS fault.

This MHP article could not have come at a better time. ALL of this shit is coming out into the open now.

[vaberella]

93. That's how the double standard works.

I find this fits right into what Melissa Harris-Perry was talking about.

[treestar]

18. I doubt that

It raised her profile in fact.

[Larkspur]

4. I agree with the theme of what Lyons wrote but he should have declined to use

references to the KKK and Bachmann. MHP is very intelligent and a good public speaker. I respect her views when she is on MSNBC, but
I disagree with Melissa Harris-Perry's assessment of white liberals frowning on Obama. None of the ones I read or listen to, like David Sirota, have supported racist attacks against Obama, but they do criticize him for betraying his campaign promises or maintaining the Bush era's defense and police policies. Obama's white liberal critics have criticize our first African American President on the issues, not on his race.

[Supersedeas]

95. themes can be overwhelmed by these choices in words

[SidDithers]

7. Gene Lyons is becoming a punchline

What a shame. His stuff with Joe Conason was good, but that was a long time ago, Gene.

Sid

[CakeGrrl]

9. Something's been set off in him to respond with such extremity. -nt

[EffieBlack]

12. Funny, isn't it, that those who threw screaming fits at the notion that a black woman accused

some white people of bigotry are strangely silent in the face of such a despicable smear of that black woman for merely speaking her mind.

Apparently their outrage is very selective and specific to certain situations and people.

How telling.

[hlthe2b]

16. Your thread is a dupe, EffieBlack...Others have posted there.

I see considerable outrage at that comment from Mr. Lyons, regardless of how they might feel about his larger points. With this new entry into the fray, I just think the entire discussion has degenerated to intolerable levels.

[Empowerer]

19. Really?

This is the first I heard of Lyons' column.

[hlthe2b]

20. Yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2024362

[Empowerer]

22. Thanks

I hadn't seen that thread - I don't spend much time in GD.

But that said, there aren't many responses to that OP - in fact, most of the posts there are about whether Gene Lyons is a movie critic (folks got him mixed up with Gene Shalit). And I have yet to see much reaction there or here from those who were so upset and offended that Professor Harris-Perry said that she thinks there may be some racism in the progressive ranks.

I find what Gene Lyons said to be infinitely more despicable than anything that Professor Harris-Perry said. I can't imagine anyone who was truly offended by her comments would think that Lyons' comments are acceptable. Yet, while there was a firestorm here over her comments, there's been hardly a blip about his.

Why is that?

[hlthe2b]

24. Perhaps others just are burned out and disgusted...

I know I am and as I said, the discourse has now degenerated from what was a thoughtful back and forth with this new essay.

So, I will certainly be dropping out, but that hardly means I am not dismayed.

[Empowerer]

28. I understand your being dismayed

But don't be surprised if some of us read the silence on the part of DUers in the face of the vicious personal, racist and sexist attack on Professor Harris-Perry - particularly those who had the strength and incentive to harshly criticize her for her comments - as something more than just being tired . . .

[hlthe2b]

29. Do you really think that is fair to do so?

In reading all those threads the past several days, it seems clear to me that whether or not the responding poster agreed with Dr. Harris-Perry or not, they were overwhelmingly respectful and complimentary of her. I've taken a bit of time to read the comments at THE NATION and likewise have found an overwhelming level of regard for MHP among the commenters. Given that, I would think it natural to assume that they would not be appreciative of Mr. Lyon's KKK reference--at all. :shrug:

[Empowerer]

32. I don't agree

I think there has been an extraordinary amount and degree of viciousness, personal attacks and downright hatefulness toward Professor Harris-Perry here on DU. I've been appalled and dismayed by what I have seen here on a progressive website. Many of the comments on The Nation were also exceedingly vicious.

Yet, so far, it's virtually crickets in response to Gene Lyons' reprehensible comments. And since the folks who attacked Melissa Harris-Perry are often quite willing and eager to jump in to challenge any accusation of racism - and never seem to get tired of doing so - I find it hard to believe that the silence is the result of a sudden attack of exhaustion.

[hlthe2b]

36. His article is freshly posted, I believe...

It looks like late last night... Unlike Joan Walsh's piece, it is not highlighted in any way on the main page. I couldn't find it without being directed there from Elon Jame's piece (prior to this particular thread).

Give it time...

[Empowerer]

38. Considering several here have already stepped up to defend him, and even upped the ante by comparing

MHP to Ann Coulter, I think you are overly optimistic.

I think the ugly truth is that the ugly truth is being revealed here. Gene Lyons may have been venting with his disgusting spewing, but he may have helped to draw out people's real inclinations.

But let's just wait and see - so far, nothing but crickets.

[CakeGrrl]

23. This is the first time I've seen it, so no big deal. GD threads are duped here, or

posted here then duped in GD to get more 'positive' response.

[hlthe2b]

27. Oh, sure...

I do so all the time. ;)

[boomerbust]

14. I haven't seen

Ms. Harris Perry on the teevee lately. Foolish comment by Lyons, also foolish comments by Ms. Harris Perry.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. I think television networks like MSNBC are going to try and distance themselves from Melissa.

She had such good chemistry when she was on with Rachel. She'll probably appear again on her show, but it probably won't be as often.

There was also talk of her hosting her own show after she did a great job filling in for Rachel. That's obviously out the window.

[Empowerer]

34. Which would be a shame

I don't think that's going to happen, though.

[CakeGrrl]

37. Think of the message that would send: "MHP makes white people nervous!"

Proving yet another point about dual standards and race.

[Empowerer]

41. Exactly

Folks went berserk when they felt that Cenk Uygur and Keith Olbermann were canned from MSNBC because they went after President Obama and attacked other Democrats - something they called "speaking truth to power," "truth telling," etc. Yet when a black woman calls out some Democrats, she's supposed to be shunned?

Hmmm.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[frazzled]

21. He seems to be proving her point with his ...

racist and sexist (and frankly, plain nutty) screed. Good god, where will this all end. I'm glad it's come out in the open, in a way, though, rather than hiding behind a rock.

[CakeGrrl]

25. Agreed. I love that this is being dragged out into the light.

I know some would rather it just go away because it's an annoying topic, but for those who deny there is a race issue, this is an inconvenient example of the contrary.

The Presidency of Barack Obama has done quite a bit to expose some feelings and attitudes that would otherwise have stayed under wraps. And airing this stuff out is a good thing in the long run. It may be a painful discovery for some, but better that it happens after all is said and done.

I like to know who's REALLY whom.

[Whisp]

30. this guy sounds like a total IDIOT.

whats with all the attention seeking? too many bloggers fighting for that 5 seconds of ad time I suppose. god damned strange shit.

[MNBrewer]

31. Excellent article

Gene Lyons', that is.

[Empowerer]

33. Really?

Are you serious?

You think that it's "excellent" to compare a black female liberal to the KKK and Michelle Bachmann?

Given that, I assume you had no objection to Professor Harris-Perry stating that she believes that some white progressives are bigots.

If not, please explain why it's wrong for a black woman to say that she thinks that some white liberals have bigoted views but it's ok for a white man to compare a black female liberal to the Ku Klux Klan and Michelle Bachmann.

[CakeGrrl]

35. Let the responses tell you what you need to know. -nt

[MNBrewer]

39. Some white progressives ARE bigots, so are some black progressives.

[Empowerer]

40. So then why do you think Gene Lyons' article was excellent - he disagrees with you

and attacked Prof. Harris-Perry for saying that some white progressives are bigots - something you think is true.

[MNBrewer]

43. I disagree with the conclusions she draws from the data

Not that the data are all wrong.

She says these people are bigots, therefore they criticize the President for things which she imagines they would not criticize a white President. Leading to the idea that criticism of the President is bigotry.

It's purely an attempt to silence criticism, nothing more.

[Empowerer]

46. That's not how she drew her conclusions, but there's no point in arguing about it since

I doubt I'll convince you otherwise, you or you me.

I do think you're flat out wrong to accuse her of attempting to silence criticism - assuming and impugning her motives is exactly what her detractors accuse her of doing. Why is it so difficult to believe that she looked at various factors and, based upon her experience, she reached a different conclusion than you would have reached?

And, considering you agree with her that some white liberals are bigots, why do you have difficulty believing that those bigoted white liberals might be holding President Obama to a different standard? How does pointing that out mean that someone is trying to stifle criticism against him?

And even if you leap over your own logic and reach a different conclusion, does that warrant the vicious attack that Gene Lyons launched on her?

[MNBrewer]

47. I told you I disagree with her conclusions

It's not difficult to believe at all, as I've seen it. She believes one thing, based on her experience, and I believe another, based on my experience.

But she's right why? Because she has a Ph.D? I have one too.

[Empowerer]

48. Please explain how you can believe that there are liberal bigots but insist that she's wrong in her

conclusions.

If there are white liberal bigots, why do you believe that her conclusion that some white liberals are allowing race to affect their criticism of President Obama? Do you believe that bigots set aside their bigotry when it comes to the black president and judge him without any bias at all?

And yes, she has a PhD - and is an expert on race and politics. I don't think that makes her right, but it certainly makes her very knowledgeable about the topic and her views are worthy of consideration. She certainly doesn't deserve to be attacked in the way she's being attacked.

[MNBrewer]

50. Bigotry comes in a variety of flavors.

Some people have a particular fondness for homophobia ("god's in the mix").

I disagree that Obama is being criticized by the "left" out of proportion to, for example, Bill Clinton. I know progressives who were quite unhappy about his warmongering, and his welfare "reform", and his "free-trade" initiatives. They didn't hold back from criticizing him then. Since then, however, there has been a revolution in media. We have digital communication, blogs, websites, etc. that didn't exist when Clinton held power.

I guess people are entitled to believe that the criticism is out of proportion, or undue, or undeserved, or even based on racism, but I don't think it's that clear cut that it is.

But then, maybe I'm just another of those racist white progressives who hate him because he's black. :sarcasm:

[Empowerer]

52. So, you won't answer the very simple question . . .

You apparently think the white liberal bigots you admit exist have managed not to allow their bigotry affect their views of the black President. That's the only way you could both believe that some white liberals are bigots AND insist that Melissa Harris-Perry was wrong.

Let's just agree to disagree ..You're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.:-)

[MNBrewer]

59. If, having higher expectations of Barack Obama because he is black is truly racism

Is it? I don't know. I really don't.

[Number23]

Why does the man's color factor into your expectations of him at all?

[MNBrewer]

84. Because of the assumption that he's experienced certain things

in this country because of his skin color.

[Number23]

86. And that automatically equates to people who have NOT had these experiences

expecting more from those of us who have?

[MNBrewer]

87. More?

Maybe. I expect that people who have experienced naked bias might have more sympathy for others who have experienced bias. So what if that's expecting more?

[Number23]

89. Who said anything about sympathy?

Your initial comment was "If, having higher expectations of Barack Obama because he is black is truly racism" to now you're talking about expecting people to have more sympathy merely because of the color of their skin. And the idea that you think that someone black should be automatically "more" or "less" something solely because of their skin color is absolutely fascinating. The man's individuality is inconsequential, eh?

If the definition of racial prejudice is to "prejudge someone" based on nothing more than the color of their skin, how would you characterize your belief of having higher expectations of Obama simply because he is black?

[MNBrewer]

91. At some point your concept of racial prejudice becomes actuarial

[Number23]

92. And that means what, exactly?

[treestar]

94. No your logic is off

First, it does not "lead to the idea that criticism is bigotry." She didn't say criticism is bigotry, but that the POTUS is held to a higher standard and therefore criticized more easily. It is not an attempt to "silence" criticism (which is never possible, the whine that someone is being "silenced" is a pure play for victimhood). It is merely pointing out that maybe the fact that you can't find anything Obama did to be good enough is something you should examine the reasons for.

[AngkorWot]

42. I love all the people falling all over themselves proving her point.

It would be some masterful troll work if it weren't so pathetic.

[MNBrewer]

44. what was her point?

People who criticize the President are bigots?

[AngkorWot]

45. Well, let's see...

There's that one woman who said "I'm not racist, I've got lots of black colleagues."

Then David Sirota called her uppity.

Then there's this douche.

[great white snark]

49. Don't even bother.

There is nothing to see here - it's all about stifling of criticism.

:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. well they realize that given the state of the economy Obama's chances of winning reelection are not

very good. To be fair if Obama loses - which is looking increasingly likely - it will not happen because he is too left or too right or too centrist - and it will not be because white liberals have deserted him - they will vote for him anyway. I'm sure Sirota, Lyons and Walsh will vote for him anyway and advise their readers to do the same. Even 90%+ of Obama's strongest critics on DU will support him anyway. - Obama may likely lose reelection because when the economy is perceived as down and in a state of malaise incumbent presidents almost always lose. Right now we see the big Wall Street money shifting from Obama to Romney. For them their donations are an investment, not an ideological commitment. Of course nothing is absolute and Obama might just pull off an upset and defy the normal historic pattern and win. Stranger things have happened. Still his most enthusiastic followers know in their hearts that it does not look good and they feel very, very frustrated.

[ClarkUSA]

53. "To be fair if Obama loses - which is looking increasingly likely"? Any proof to back up your claim?

Even in swing states where his approval rating is in the mid-30's, such as PA, the most recent state poll has him beating both Romney & Perry. He beats these bozos in recent national polls, too.

How did you come up with the idea that it looks "increasingly likely" Pres. Obama will lose in 2012? Other than voter fraud in OH, FL, and PA, I don't see anyway he'll lose, given his opponents.

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. it is looking increasingly likely that Romney will be the nominee and increasingly less likely that

Perry will be the nominee. That certainly helps the Republicans a lot. There is a simple historic reality: When the economy is perceived as down or in a state of malaise - incumbents almost always lose reelection. Polls at this point in time showed Jimmy Carter handily winning reelection and solidly defeating Ronald Reagan. Intrade currently gives Barak Obama a 46.6% chance of winning reelection and a 50.2% chance that the GOP nominee will win the presidency. We already see the trend of Wall Street donor money which in 1988 favored Barack Obama now switching over to Mitt Romney. They are simply placing their bets on who they think will likely win. Of course it is possible that the historic pattern will be broken in 2012 and Obama could be reelected. It is very possible. But all this name calling and wild crazy accusations being thown against liberal Democrats the vast majority of whom will end up supporting Obama anyway does not help President Obama's reelction effort. That has the ring of desperations.

[Number23]

56. Rec'ing for the White piece. That article made my day

"Fact is, my working relationship with Salon probably influenced this article. Because of it I deleted all of the instances of “Muthafuckas” in this piece out of professional courtesy. Referring to a place you contribute on occasion as “These Muthafuckas here…” is probably a good way not to contribute there anymore.

But seriously. These Muthafuckas here need to stop it."

Oh SNAP!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It's like he's in my head. I swear I spend half my time on this web site editing my posts because I am cussing up a damn storm and we all know the complex DU "rules" don't allow that. :eyes:

I have no idea who Gene Lyons is and after reading that, I feel even less inclined to do so.

[TheKentuckian]

61. The KKK charge is fucking dumber than dogshit.

The good doctor is engaging in a campaign to de-legitimize and silence criticism of her favored politician (which is too smart and requires too high a level of lucidness to make Bachman territory) but she isn't lynching folks, nor burning crosses, nor fighting for any master race.

I find what she is up to to be somewhere between dubious and disgusting but KKK is way the hell of the reservation and the Bachman thing goofy. Shitty works for me but if you want a personal comparison, I'm thinking the Lady Rothschild who went apeshit when Obama got the nomination fits pretty fair, you know wild charges in a snit over a political idol, kinda racist, and sorta ratfuckerish.

[Empowerer]

62. Still waiting for the torrent of outrage I assumed would be forthcoming

from those who thought it was SO awful that Melissa Harris-Perry said some liberals apply a racial double-standard. Crickets.

How ironic that the people who insist that it's UNFORGIVABLE for a black woman to accuse a group of white people of bigotry (even though she named no names and personally attacked no one) apparently have absolutely no problem with a white man accusing that same black woman of behaving like the Ku Klux Klan because she criticized a group of white people.

Racial double standard, plain and clear for all to see.

[KoKo]

64. All I know is that Gene Lyons and Joe Conason were HUGE defenders of Bill Clinton

and are Democrats to their core. I've never seen anything from either of them that would be considered racist. But, if you took it that way...I guess you are seeing something new. They have changed their Lib/Dem Spots and somehow have some new agenda. I don't know what else to say or think about it.

Gene Lyons...Under the Bus or a "latent racist." I don't know him personally...just know his work defending Dem Causes and people for Decades.

[Empowerer]

67. I didn't accuse Lyons of being a racist

But now that you mention it ...

If accusing some white liberals of being racist supposedly makes Melissa Harris-Perry a racist, how would one characterize someone who compares a liberal black woman to the Ku Klux Klan because she accused some white liberals of being racist?

[KoKo]

69. I have no idea. I don't know Gene Lyons personally...just his writings for years...so

I can only offer an opinion that either he will be viewed as racist in his article by some or he's attacked because what he said suddenly offends some readers.

:shrug: whatever... I don't know him...just a comment on the thread.

[Union Scribe]

88. Personally, I don't give a shit when a flamethrower gets burned back.

Live by the sword and all that.

[Major Hogwash]

63. The point of Harris-Perry's article went right over the top of Lyon's head.

President Obama is the first black President in the history of the United States.
Yet, above and beyond the issue of his race, President Obama stepped in to office in 2009 in the worst conditions that have ever been faced by any President, Democratic or Republican, ever before.
Evah!
In the entire history of the United States!!

FDR didn't have 2 wars raging out of control when he stepped into office.
He just had a Great Depression to deal with.

Man, that seems relatively easy today compared to what President Obama has been asked to do in just 2 short years while having to deal with questions surrounding where he was born at the same time!!!!
Stupid, ignorant, dumb questions of President Obama's birthplace that were spread for months every single day by the media in this country and repeated for months, I remind you!!

So, when Lyons, or Sirota, or Sphincter, or some other tightass white liberal writes a stupid article about President Obama, they might consider what the Republicans pledged after the 2008 election, even before President Obama could take the oath of office -- to make him a 1-term President.
Regardless of how they could accomplish it, regardless of blocking any and all attempts to solve the problems of this country, regardless of creating any jobs, or trying to solve any of the financial problems the country faced, that was their goal, their agenda, and damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead if they weren't going to do their level best to see that they could do exactly that!!

[KoKo]

65. But...I don't think white America voted for him because of his skin color...it was CHANGE from BUSH/

Cheney. It seems odd that some folks think Obama's skin color was what got him elected.

[ClarkUSA]

66. That's a strawman argument. MHP, Major Hogwash and "some folks" never said that.

[KoKo]

70. BTW...do you think that white voters voted for Obama because of his skin color

or his proposals on the campaign trail? I'm a Dem White Voter. I don't see him as having a skin color...but as a Dem Candidate. You have a problem with that?

[ClarkUSA]

71. Not interested in your racially-tinged nonsense. I thought it was "bedtime for" you? -->

"It's bedtime for me..carry on."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=785483&mesg_id=785706

[KoKo]

73. I got a "thrill up my leg" (to quote Chris Matthews) that you noticed my bedtime...

That's very cool. :D

[ClarkUSA]

74. So you were being disingenuous?

[hlthe2b]

80. Huh?

Ok... I should just back out of this discussion now... I don't have a clue what prompted that comment, but clearly I must have missed on hell of a lot elsewhere.

I'll just say good night to you both. Carry on.... :shrug:

[Major Hogwash]

68. That is the most misdirected comment a post of mine has ever received at the DU.

I didn't say a word about white people who voted for President Obama in 2008.
Or why they voted for President Obama.
I didn't even offer a reason why President Obama was elected President to begin with.

What I did say, though, was that the conditions President Obama faced when he was running for President were the worst conditions that any Presidential candidate had ever faced . . . in our long, illustrous 220 plus years long history of the United States.

So, to my way of thinking, the miniscule nitpicking that is being done by relatively unknown pundits who don't even rate high enough to have their own teevee programs is over-the-top, completely out of the bounds of ordinary thinking, and just going way the hell out of their way to whine about something - anything - to try and sound like they know what the hell they are talking about.

Above and beyond that issue, however, for someone to claim that Melissa Harris-Perry is "the negative of the KKK", is simply atrocious.
If I were the owner of Salon dot com, I would fire this Lyons guy tomorrow.

[KoKo]

72. Gene Lyons is a print reporter. You only respect folks who have TV programs?

Really? :eyes: And, Gene Lyons isn't a "realtively unknown pundit." Those of us here on DU since 2001 remember how he and Joe Conason together were the voices fighting against the abuses of the Starr Commission and the RW going after Clinton. They are hardly "unknown" to long time Dem Activist readers.

[ClarkUSA]

75. Again, you're making a strawman argument and not addressing what is being said to you.

[KoKo]

76. It's really BedTime for sure...and you are now

on "ignore" along with "blue list." Only two... You are special. :D

[ClarkUSA]

77. Your refusal to honestly acknowledge what other people say to you is duly noted.

[hlthe2b]

78. I agree on that, KoKo...

Race may have been (clearly was)a factor among those who voted against him, but I really have a hard time believing an major number of people voted for him because of his skin color. I don't think I could ever be convinced of that one. Change from Bush/Cheney* absolutely and without doubt.

[ClarkUSA]

79. No one ever really said "an major number of people voted for him because of his skin color".

That bit of racially-tinged nonsense is the strawman argument KoKo fabricated in reply to Major Hogwash's salient words. Don't fall for it.

[hlthe2b]

81. It was Koko's comment I was replying to...

I assumed the comment had been put forth...

Sorry, it is late.... If I missed something, mea culpa. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

82. Yeah, I realize that.

No problem. :hi: