Why white liberals are (really) ditching Obama

[defendandprotect]

Why white liberals are (really) ditching Obama

Racism isn't responsible for the president's drop in popularity. His right-wing policies are

By David Sirota 10/26/11

few weeks ago, I wrote an essay that got me a much larger truckload of hate mail than usual. The piece concerned the persistent problem of denialism in parts of White America when it comes to race. I lamented how, despite media and political insinuations that whites have become an oppressed group, it is people of color -- and in particular, African-Americans -- who remain the real casualties of discrimination:

You can see in black unemployment rates, which are twice as high as white unemployment rates -- a disparity that persists even when controlling for education levels. You can see it in a 2004 MIT study showing that job-seekers with "white names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews" than job seekers with comparable resumes and "African-American-sounding names." And you can see it in a news media that looks like an all-white country club and a U.S. Senate that includes no black legislators.


I stand by my argument. It is a fact that the most problematic and widespread application of this denialism takes the form represented by white conservatives who angrily insist that racism against minorities is not only dead, but that African-Americans enjoy undue favoritism.

That said, as the 2012 presidential campaign begins in earnest, we are seeing a new strain of fact-free denialism -- one that is not as dangerous as that coming from the right, but one that is nonetheless counterproductive to the cause of racial equality.


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

[msongs]

1. those pesky people of no color can't trusted lol nt

[ClarkUSA]

2. What kind of racial nonsense is that? WTF is "people of no color"?

[Zanzoobar]

14. White light is all colors, isn't it?

The previous poster missed the mark, I think.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Anti-transparentist bigotry. n/t

[Zanzoobar]

33. First, they came for the transparentists....

[Ken Burch]

53. ...and I did not speak out, for I was opaque...

:eyes:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Bucky]

92. I blame you

The very mention of race turns Americans into complete jibbering fools. Please notice how every comment responding to your little joke just got stupider than the last.

[ProfessorGAC]

95. Way To Go Bucky!

I thought it was just an early morning "funny" and people got twisted in knots. Sheesh!
GAC

[orpupilofnature57]

3. I'm a white Liberal ,and I'll defiantly be voting for president Obama

and let him know for the next four years ,that he's too much a Repuker ,like I did the last four years.What am I going to do ,vote for Kkkarl?

[Ken Burch]

54. Defiantly, or definitely?

If defiantly, who, might I ask, are you defying?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[orpupilofnature57]

91. Hmmmm, Doth protest a bit too much???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.html

[orpupilofnature57]

90. Damn spell-check ,but what a concept ,defiantly defying being a single celled

amoeba ,the president is flawed criticizing him is the Democratic thing to do ,because unlike http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.htmla repuker.....

[Cool Logic]

4. He's moving back to the left at the moment...

And will continue to do so until the base is re-energized.

And then...6-8 weeks prior to the election, he will tack to the right in an effort to win back the independents.

[ThomCat]

8. Yes, and after the election he will be a republican again.

[indepat]

104. Let this white liberal/progressive say it again: it's not the color of skin, but the content of

junior's right wing policies, initiatives, and wars ratified/continued and the content of BHO's right-wing decision to put social security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the chopping block in the wake of extending junior's tax cuts for the wealthy. Some shared sacrifice: the wealthy have sacrificed nothing, but social security and Medicare recipients are going to be required to sacrifice some already-paid-for benefits, about the most right-wing action possible, for it is tantamount to a very large and heavy tax on the most vulnerable in society, a total crock akin to a pure right-wing frontal assault on the old and frail. :patriot:

[hifiguy]

108. +1

Sirota is absolutely correct.

[orpupilofnature57]

154. In a nutshell !!!!

[JDPriestly]

160. And that is the problem -- after the election he will be a Republican

again. Uggh.

[defendandprotect]

9. Exactly ---

Was just reading something about the '96 race and the very POOR turnout for

Clinton after the NAFTA, deals etal --

2010 seems to be foreshadowing something similar in 2012 --


We really need two strong anti-war candidates to challenge in 2012 --

Two candidates who would strongly support MEDICARE4ALL which the nation so

desperately needs --

[eridani]

82. What we really needed was to have started to develop those candidates--

--in 1975 or so. Too late. We barely have the time to line up a progressive populist for 2016

[AlbertCat]

134. What we really need....

.... is to get MONEY out of the electoral process.

I have no clue exactly how that is to be done, especially post Citizen's United.

Some completely undoable-at-this-time ideas though....

For Fed elections:
Each state must follow the same procedures
Use the same methods
Each candidate must get equal "air time" everywhere, including ads... free of charge
Each must spend the same amount of money that comes from a general election fund
Corporations and private businesses should not be involved at all.

Some things like that might help the process not be such a circus of personalities.

Regular, universally broadcasted fact checking of Candidates would be nice too.

Could you imagine????!!!!

[russspeakeasy]

145. Go to Dylan Ratigans "getmoneyout.com" and sign the petition.

:evilgrin: It's not the complete answer, but it's a start..

[eridani]

148. Yes, that too

But we still need to play the lousy hand we are dealt anyway.

[LooseWilly]

194. All tv & radio outlets are answerable to the FCC... which can REQUIRE air time for candidates.

Badda boom-badda bing... anyone who can qualify (the next step of democratizing the process) as a "candidate" can get equal air-time with everyone else... and if some media outlet doesn't want to provide that access then they lose their license and someone who is willing to provide that access will take over the operation.

It's really an amazingly simple fix. Just have to be willing to "gank" the media outlets of the opportunity to charge candidates HUGE amounts of money for advertising...

[xiamiam]

240. I think that person will emerge from the occupy together..washington, ny, sf..movement

I'm with you 100% but the anti war candidate who will primary Obama will not step forward from the existing group of players..we're fed up with them..with a few exceptions..

[harun]

128. We all know how he goverened. It wasn't Progressive or Liberal.

From the beginning the strategy was "But, we aren't as bad as the Republican's".

[SammyWinstonJack]

204. Talk is cheap. Who does he think believes that he is sincere now that he is once again on

the campaign trail, pretending to move back to the left, after throwing some many under the bus? :silly:

[ClarkUSA]

5. "David Sirota and the white Leftist version of racism"

It's kind of funny when you think about it, but silver-pen David Sirota thinks he's got a better grip on race than the founding director of the Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South at Tulane University, Melissa Harris-Perry. After Professor Harris-Perry's piece in The Nation chiding white Leftist electoral racism of double standards against a black president received acclaim and attention, Sirota, a renowned fantasy-land pretend-Leftist, has decided that he was going to take on Professor Harris Perry, by being too cute by half.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fvtfPnW8qdU/ToH6XDHyuOI/AAAAAAAACdM/8PkY2G7lT_k/s1600/sirota+racist.PNG

Sirota's argument, on the surface, is that the elite white Leftist class - who overlap with the Professional Left about 90% - is really mad at the president not out of some double standard they set for a black president, but on the basis of policy. Or as David calls it, policy betrayals. Clever. Because we have never seen the attempt to hide denial of race-privilege behind a thin veil of policy criticism ever before, right?

<snip>

And guess what, David Sirota? Don't think that people of color aren't noticing. The Affordable Care Act enjoys its strongest backing among communities of color, and among its most ardent fact-ignoring critics are the white pretend-Left professional chatter classes... The thesis of white Leftist elite racism does not lie in the idea that all (or any) policy criticism of a black president is by definition racist, no matter what Sirota's fantasies are. The thesis lies, on two fronts: first, that the professional white Leftist elite class cares more about ideological hangups than they do about actually helping the needy, who are disproportionately minorities. That part of the thesis was just proven above. The second part of that thesis is the very real observation that the first African American president is not treated with the same level of respect by the white Leftist elite, nor does his accomplishments enjoy among them the same praise had those same accomplishments come from a white president. And this part of the thesis, unfortunately, is not at all difficult to prove, either.

<snip>

The racist undertone is also present in the latent expectation that once you have elected a black president, he needs to be a magician and magically begin a utopia according to your likings. It's present in the refusal to recognize that Barack Obama has a harder job to get anything done because of the color of his skin and the institutional racism in our government, and yet he has managed to get more done in less time than any president of recent times. To ignore that reality of institutional racism is itself the denial of white-privilege. And I am going to call that denial of race-privilege what it actually is: it's racism.

Read more http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/david-sirota-and-white-leftist-version.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. +1!! Exactly!!

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

42. That's a false statement. When did I do that? Quote me.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

49. Again, where is the quote where I said what you claimed I said? Link? Quote?

[ThomCat]

56. Are you blind? Don't you read?

[ClarkUSA]

61. You said, "You really like calling people racist". Link to the quote where I said that.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

65. No, you haven't. I never said that. You have linked to and quoted nothing I actually said.

[closeupready]

97. Oh, please. Everyone knows it's true.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Lorien]

64. Well said ThomCat! This all brings back to mind my first Obama vs. Hillary debate

It was in a Taxi cab in rural PA during the primaries. My cab driver was an African American guy in his late 20's or early 30's, originally from NYC. It was a 45 minute cab ride and we spent about 30 minutes of it in a friendly debate. At the time I was leaning toward Obama and absolutely wouldn't vote for Clinton because she seemed far too DLC. The cab driver disliked Obama intensely and strongly supported Clinton. I asked him why he so passionately disliked Obama, and he said "what do you really know about his history and his record?" I admitted "not much, but he seems like a change from the status quo" "That's just the window dressing! He IS the status quo!" insisted the driver, and then he got into specifics. He listed one action after another of Obama's that he disagreed with; his knowledge on the topic was vast and he gave me a lot to think about. Once we reached the airport and he unloaded my bags he said "So? Who will you vote for in the primaries?" I mumbled "Edwards" and he just laughed and said "Well good! As long as it's not Obama!"

At no time during that long drive did race or gender come up in the discussion. Why? Because it was all about POLICY!

[HughBeaumont]

81. One thing I don't understand . . .

. . . if he saw at the time Obama's somewhat hidden Third Way-side, what was his reasoning behind supporting Free-Traitor, economically UNprogressive, war-votin', firmly status-quo Hillary?

[ThomCat]

173. Who?

That person was replying to me, so it looks like you're asking why I supported Hillary.

I didn't. Ever.

Why would you assume that I did?

[HughBeaumont]

196. Was talking about the cab driver.

[ChiciB1]

101. As A WHITE FEMALE... I Resent Anyone HERE Who Keeps Spouting This

stuff about white people being racist because they DISAGREE with Obama. For me and so many others in my family, and many of my friends... SIMPLY NOT TRUE!

I lived through the Civil Rights Era, Viet Nam et al! I lived in TEXAS when there were still TWO different water fountains and blacks were NOT allowed in restaurants and recall clearly calling STUPID people out for their IGNORANCE about these facts!

I AM NO RACIST! I'm for EQUALITY FOR ALL! But I am upset, disappointed and feel betrayed by many, many things and ways that Obama has gone about his BUSINESS of being POTUS!

He leaned to the RIGHT and tried to CARESS a group of people who seem to actually HATE him and won't do a damn thing to help him! And yet, he just now has decided he needs to CAMPAIGN for his base again.

Good for him NOW, but it's really late in the game!

This WHITE WOMAN IS NO RACIST! And I won't even add the thingey about my BLACK friends because it may be used AGAINST ME!

This stuff SUCKS! I agree with you ThomCat!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

176. Yeah, that "I'm not a Bolshevik/please like me" meeting with the Rs was pathetic.

And now the easily suckered believe he's a warrior. UFB.

Don't let them get to you!

[brentspeak]

20. Methinks the weirdo who wrote the screed you linked to proteth too much

Also doesn't know how to write a coherent opinion piece too much.

[ClarkUSA]

25. You're describing David Sirota to a T.

[brentspeak]

29. Nope, I'm referring to the unknown freak-a-zoid from that loser website you linked to.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Coming from you, that's a compliment. Did he hit a nerve?

:)

[brentspeak]

36. Did Sirota hit a nerve for you? Apparently so

Why else would you link to a correspondence school-quality flunky piece posted on some no-name website as your "response"?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[ThomCat]

55. Nobody in the DLC pretends to be liberal.

They're proud of their centrism. That's the whole point of the DLC.

It's Obama who pretends to be a liberal just for the elections, but acts like a centrist republican most of the time.

Tax cuts are the solution for almost any problem, and more tax cuts, and more tax cuts.

Wars have to be continued indefinitely, even after announcing that they've supposedly ended.

Blanket defense for those who torture and commit war-crimes, siting national security, so there can't ever be any legal accountability.

Expansions of wiretapping and snooping, and seizing records and information from peace activists while hunting down whistle-blowers more than any prior president ever has, and still keeping more limits on FOIA requests successfully answered than we even had under Bush.

Putting the greatest liberal success story programs ever on the chopping block, because that's what the republicans and their corporate sponsors want. Building a super-committee with instructions to justify cutting those same programs. What republicans kept failing to, Obama will do for them!

And pushing to giving us 3 more free trade agreements as part of a Jobs Bill? That's like pushing to giving American patients 3 types of cancer as part of our annual physical in order to make sure we all stay healthy!

You really think you're going to score points by smearing a democrat for "pretending to be a liberal" when you're a fanatical Obama supporter? :rofl:

Open your eyes!

[SteveM]

137. The only thing Obama has to fear is... Tom Friedman himself! nt

[newspeak]

237. I don't think of DLC as centrism

more like global corporatism and privatize the shite out of everything for their corporate friends. Oh wait, that's the repugs plan.

[ClarkUSA]

68. LOL! David Sirota is no liberal. He worked for DLC darling Gov. Schweitzer as a top campaign aide.

Elite white folks like him just love telling black folks like Melissa Harris-Perry that they have no clue about racism.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

74. His patronizing words are indeed saying that. What's "pathetic" is your gratuitous personal attack.

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. Well, excuse me. Your ARGUMENT is pathetic.

Better?

[Union Scribe]

153. I know, every time I see a link to that shit hole of stupidity

I start giggling before I even read whatever has been pasted here. It's total zombie fare. The only reason people post that crap here is to call DUers names without doing it themselves.

[Puglover]

231. The author is a member here.

Odd he doesn't post his own shit huh?

[Ignis]

125. This. Who is "Deaniac83" and why should we care?

[Puglover]

230. Yep.

The guy who wrote this piece of fish shit is a member of DU. Odd he doesn't have a journal or post his own screeds. Weird huh?

[tblue]

31. Ms H-P is an unflappable Obama supporter

I've seen her twist his policies like a pretzel to make them sound like achievements for black people. It was kinda sad, though I understand. She is brilliant but also biased as she makes excuses for him again and again. She's so deeply invested, she's lost some credibility with me. I don't care much for party lines or manipulation.

[EFerrari]

41. Rachel does the same thing.

HP is a working academic, though, so it's a little bizarre to watch her do it.

[ClarkUSA]

47. How dare Rachel praise Pres. Obama using facts???? Throw her under the bus, too.

[eridani]

85. Just read DU to find out that black people have no monopoly on the

--personality before policy approach to politics.

[EFerrari]

37. That site needs to be renamed the people's spew

because it's content is embarrassing on every level.

[PurityOfEssence]

67. So what's the greater slur in the title of your post, "white" or "leftist"?

Personally, even though being terminally white, my issues with Barack Obama stem from his corporatism, appeasement, high-handed illegal waging of resource wars and naked use of religion in politics.

This will not end well, and it's not everybody else's fault.

[ClarkUSA]

69. Facts can't be slurs, unless one wants to play the victim.

[chill_wind]

110. Let me spell this out for you.

Personal accusations of racism based on fact free lies are indeed slurs.

Disgusting that the man behind your hit piece is so willing to mislead his bent of followers, like you apparently, that he would depend on your selective ignorance regarding Sirota when he, this "Deaniac83", says of Sirota's piece

"To ignore that reality of institutional racism is itself the denial of white-privilege. And I am going to call that denial of race-privilege what it actually is: it's racism.


Sirota's OP piece -in very first sentence- has a link in at the Salon site I guess he was too lazy to click. Or maybe he didn't have time, because it was so urgent to whip up his long hate screed first and get it out there and worry about supporting his facts and charges later. Either way, I wonder why.

http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/26/americans_denying_racism/index.html

You're being used.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Crap.

We know who Harris-Perry is. We know who Sirota is.

Who the fuck is "Deaniac83" and what are HIS credentials?

I think he's a fucking splitter, trying to diminish Democratic Party turnout by promoting division between two progressive wings. I think he's a paid fucking troll, working for the RNC.

Harris-Perry wrote a thoughtful examination of the decline in Obama's support, most of which I disagree with, for the very reasons that Sirota stated in his thoughtful dissection of her argument.

"Deaniac83" offered up a hateful racist screed.

Fuck him.

[chill_wind]

78. It's also "kinda funny" what else all the vicious anti_Sirota torches and pitchforks brigade

would rather ignore, while blindly hurling racist accusations, and I wonder why:

"These representative snapshots remind us that despite Denialist rhetoric, institutional racism and white privilege dominate American society."

Oh. Check the date.


http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/26/americans_denying_racism/index.html

[eridani]

83. Here's a clue for you

The people who hate pro-corporate policies coming from Obama are the same ones who hated NAFTA and welfare "reform."

[Nancy Waterman]

103. Well said!!

The racist undertone is also present in the latent expectation that once you have elected a black president, he needs to be a magician and magically begin a utopia according to your likings.

I think a great deal of the "racism" on the Left comes with the higher expectations of Obama which are followed by the angry disappointment when the impossible fails to appear. It is more like the myth of the "Magical Negro" than the more obvious racism of the Ku Klux Clan or the Tea Baggers, their current incarnation.

[frylock]

115. clearly it's racism that raised expectations and not obama's slick marketing campaign..

of HOPE and CHANGE.

[joeybee12]

106. pathetic tripe...nt

[frylock]

111. self delete

why is the image in this post left to stand? mods?

[GOTV]

123. Absurd. Did Obama just become black in office? Why did all these "racists" support him originally?

Just another ridiculous attempt to silence criticism. At least they figured out that "You must want president Palin" wasn't working.

[ooglymoogly]

132. -1 nwat

[SteveM]

136. So-o-o you're saying Sirota is a "Liberal Straight white-racist male?"...

That's what the true custodians of racial equality always called anyone who objected to orthodoxy where I live. (The shotgun approach was designed to cover all the popular targets of heresy.)

Frankly, Sirota is right on this one. I'm rather turned off by Obama and his ideology of non-ideology. I have no enthusiasm for him (or Clinton, for that matter), and will not donate any $ to him. Will I vote for him? Maybe, though I think it won't make much difference given the lack of a liberal/left opposition.

You need to get over this tired, worn-out way of bashing those who are not sufficiently pure of ideology. It would stink, if it weren't so old, dry and smelling like the toasting dust on vacuum tubes.

[Solomon]

139. pfft. Dont you know that white folks are the only

ones to be taken seriously on issues involving race?

They define it, set the grounds on what is talked about, etc.

The fact that Sirota admits he's been crying and whining that it's white people that are being oppressed should tell you all you need to know.

Being called racist to whites is such a heinous thing, that they engage in all manner of denial. They defend all but the most obvious overt form. It's gotten to the point where you can say racist things, but it doesnt mean you're racist.

They are so ashamed to admit that some whites are racist that they excuse anything with racist connotations. If racial bias is part of a situation then point to others reasons for the situation as well. Once you find that hook to hang your hat on, you cam then proceed to totally ignore the racial element because "there are other reasons". Not only will many ignore the racial element, but a lot will declare with great fanfare that race has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[readmoreoften]

147. Another baseless vicious ad hominem attacks from a desperate Obama supporter.

You have no positive reason for us to vote for your candidate, so you use the concept of racism to beat down your opponents. Meanwhile, none of you actually care about REAL racism: what was done to Troy Davis in Georgia, the high unemployment of African-Americans. All you care about is winning and you'll step on and destroy anyone to get there.

[JDPriestly]

162. Nobody expects Obama to be a magician.

But would respecting the civil rights of prisoners and suspects -- even of suspected terrorists require magic?

And how about getting traditional search warrants before snooping on our private electronic communications? Does that take some sort of magic?

Then there is prosecuting the wealthy for things like fraud or stealing just like you would prosecute a poor person -- African-American, White, Hispanic, Asian, any race if they wrote bad checks or shoplifted?

And what about recognizing the basic right if every American to survive, to have a job and AFFORDABLE health care that make survival possible? Does that take magic?

Would it have taken magic to be willing to show down the Republicans on extending the tax cuts to the rich? That should have been easy to do.

We are not asking for magic. We are just asking Obama to stand for wise policies even if it means offending some of his donors. We are asking for Obama to have courage in the face of right-wing extremism.

The accusation of racism aimed at many, many people who campaigned and voted for Obama just because they are critical of his right-wing stances on things is absurd.

As for why White Democrats are perceived as more critical of Obama than of Clinton -- well, the different state of the economy explains a lot. Clinton was not faced with a recession of the magnitude that Obama has been -- a recession that was, in part, due to Clinton's compromises with the right. Clinton governed during an economic boom, an overall optimistic period. Obama has not been so lucky.

And a lot of the criticism of Obama is also aimed at Clinton.

In retrospect, I think you would find that a lot of White liberals are just as unhappy with a number of Clinton's policies as they are with Obama's. History has shown us that Clinton made a lot of mistakes when he was president. He was far too obliging to Robert Rubin and Greenspan and we are paying for that now. In fact, a big problem with Obama is that his economic team is, in part, borrowed from and in part inspired by Clinton.

A lot of White liberals backed Obama rather than Hillary because they did not want another four years of the Clinton White House. Unfortunately, another four years of the Clinton White House -- is pretty much what we got.

Racism accounts for a lot of injustice in the US, but it does not account for Obama's failed policies or his lack of popularity among some of the best informed and best educated White liberals.

It also does not account for the criticism of a number of African-American liberals about the high unemployment rate in the African-American community. That high unemployment rate is unconscionable, just inexcusable for a society like ours. Permitting unemployment to soar like that in one particular racial segment of our society is the real racism. And for that you cannot blame White liberals.

[ProSense]

6. It's

a double standard that Sirota himself used.

[mercymechap]

7. New type of racism

Professor Melissa Harris-Perry had a very interesting thing to say in her article - the reason white liberals (as well as moderates) are abandoning Obama. How blacks are held to a higher standard, we expect a whole lot more from him than we do a white president.

"His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it."




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

[defendandprotect]

10. In fact, it seems that they have held their fire -- !!

[On the Road]

51. OK, So After the US Finally Elects a Black President

"a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it."

[TheKentuckian]

58. If liberals of any race, gender, faith (or lack there of), orientation, income, or whatever

wanted another Clinton they would have enabled the nomination of the one backed by the establishment.
Obama benefited from a whole load of Clinton backlash and "Clinton standards" were not going to be passing grades with such folks nor do the times call for Turd Way jacking around and an appeasement, assimilation, and endorsement of the destructive and absurd opposition, based governing ideology.

[Major Hogwash]

185. But where are all the threads bashing Senator Mitch McConnell?

I really thought that someone from Kentucky would be good at digging up dirt up on that guy.

[TheKentuckian]

218. I bitch about McConnell constantly and have been dealing with him first hand

for decades and long before he hit the Senate but as far as dirt goes all you have is some unsubstantiated rumors and his public enthrallment to corporate interests and the wealthy.

Where are you from, 60 Minutes...er..Hogwash? I trust your state is cleansed otherwise some might insinuate you are falling down on the job.

[Major Hogwash]

219. Funny, I don't see any of your threads started on him here at the DU.

Maybe you're using "invisible ink" to write them with!

[SwampG8r]

220. i have seen him write about him

many times
shame on you for posting such bullshit in an effort to stop discussion

[Major Hogwash]

229. You just made that up.

Typical racist crap from Southerners at the DU.

[TheKentuckian]

233. Major, go fuck yourself with a rusty dumpster. You can stupidly call me a liar but you had no cause

jump on Swamp and call us both racists, too boot. You don't have the sense God gave to dogshit nor have the slightest clue who you are talking to or about.

[Major Hogwash]

234. Wow, that's quite an emotional outburst from you.

I'm so surprised.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

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

[SwampG8r]

236. wow i wouldnt even begin to

know which point of this is the single most offensive
the calling a DUer a liar without any proof
the blind calling of a DUer as a racist
or the false idea the south is any more racist than any other part of the world
you have shamed yourself on so many levels it may be a new record

[newspeak]

238. and I call bullshite

when clinton signed NAFTA, then the telecommunications act, the welfare deform, and bye-bye to the fairness doctrine, and made excuses not to investigate poppy bush and iran-contra-bcci, he was done for me. His damaging policies changed my views.

My friend is very active in politics and she is african-american. She supported obama, as well as my whole family, she worked for her precinct. We talk about politics and both of us questioned his cabinet choices, questioned his compromises. It's been what the hell from both of us.

[ixion]

11. exactly. Nothing to do with the color of his skin

and everything to do with his continuing BushCo neocon policies.

[defendandprotect]

23. +1 -- liberals are ditching him because of his right wing policies ... period!

:hi:

[sad sally]

39. Yeah, some of us actually believed what he said campaigning in 2007 & 08

Health care for all
If you're an American making less than $30,000 a year, chances are you still have trouble seeing a doctor, despite the passage of President Obama's health insurance reform plan. In spite of the modest legislative victory of actually getting health reform passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that even after all the elements take effect in 2014, over 22 million Americans will still lack access to basic health services. Meanwhile, the insurance industry can be assured of continued profits.

Close Guantanamo
The President has turned away from his promise to close the facility and embraced the controversial terror war symbol, ordering the resumption of military tribunals and moved the accused 9/11 plotters' trial from a civilian court to the secret military court at Guantanamo. Special Ops and CIA black prison sites abound - claims of torture still exist.

Defend labor rights
"Understand this," Obama said during a campaign rally in 2007. "If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America." The President has yet to appear at a single protest or picket line in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Maine, Florida or Indiana where Republicans have worked to curtail collective bargaining rights.

Reform the Patriot Act
The administration sought an extension of the Patriot Act that was even longer than the one Republicans wanted. They gave it to him and continued the sweeping spy powers through 2013, ensuring that the next extension doesn't become an election year issue.

End the wars
Even though the president promised his Afghan occupation would conclude in July 2011, military officials have admitted that sometime in 2014 is more likely. American forces are dropping more bombs on more countries today than at any point during the Bush administration, with continued occupation forces in two massive countries even as they stage drone bombing of Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. ...which he specifically campaigned against. nt

[flamingdem]

12. Sirota is full of shite nt

[FarLeftFist]

16. This white Liberal is voting for Obama.

[slay]

34. This one is NOT

and not because of racism or anything like that - but because Obama has sided with the corporations over the people. if he ran purely on his actions, he would HAVE to run as a republican - and i don't vote for republicans - even when they dress up and play pretend democrat the way Obama does.

[FarLeftFist]

40. Who are you voting for then?

[slay]

50. not obama

if anyone who remotely resembled a progressive - i would vote for him/her. obama ran on hope and change but what we got were lies and betrayal. no, i won't vote for 4 more years of that. i wish someone would primary him - barring that i guess i will write in Bernie Sanders. i wish Obama had given me some reasons to vote for him - but he not only didn't do that - he's given me reasons NOT to vote for him. oh well he'll probably win and is the best of the Corporate Candidates (is any corporate candidate REALLY good though - i don't think so) since most of the GOP are insane, but his polices are so republican that i can not vote for them - or him. the system is broken.

[FarLeftFist]

57. I'm looking forward to voting for him.

[slay]

80. good for you

vote for 4 more years of shit - you're gonna get it no matter who you vote for this time anyways.

[FarLeftFist]

100. Actually I'm voting for 4 more years of somewhat Liberal policies as opposed to FASCISM.

[slay]

118. So you're voting for someone who's not good - due to fear of fascism

as yes - the old - the other guys are too scary approach. both parties are so corrupt these days it barely matters. wall street and corporations and the rich win either way. remember when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for billionaires - i do. i don't vote based on fear - don't live my life that way. it's not a good way to live or see the world. a choice between 2 utterly corrupt factions of our government, ain't no choice at all.

[fascisthunter]

131. Obama's policies are closer to fascism they they to liberal

sorry

[eridani]

89. Utterly stupid strategy and tactics. It's TOO LATE!

We barely have time to line up behind a progressive populist for 2016!

[certainot]

107. did you expect obama to march into the white billionaires's house and kick ass?

because anyone watching politics the last 30 years would realize that was not going to happen, and that more recently there was little hope of getting GOP support on anything as long as team limbaugh is allowed a free speech free ride to take free shots at all things liberal, from 1000 of the loudest radio stations in the country, while the 'left' that promised to get his back sits on their asses blogging with their iPods in thei rears.

if obama was anything, he was naive to think the left would get his back.

[SteveM]

142. You have a point...

I certainly didn't expect him to kick ass. I just didn't expect him to go center-right with such dizzying speed. (I was under no illusion that he was not really as left as LBJ, just not that far over.)

I don't blame the Far Right for running a 24-7, year-after-year campaign; that's their job. What I don't like is how many of us labor under the illusion that there is a "progressive/liberal/left" out there which any longer constitutes political opposition. There IS NO opposition, just some gassers in MSM who keep the "left-right" false equivalency propped up as a myth of system viability, all the while hoping that a NEW Messiah of the center will come on and show us a no-label 3rd Way.

The Left didn't have Obama's back because there is nothing left of the Left. Obama wants nothing to do with the Left. Neither does the Dem. Party. Neither does MSM.

Look around. Where is the left? Here?

[certainot]

158. i consider liberals left and at this point, people who believe in democracy and

try to inform themselves with alternatives to the MSM and make an effort.

there has been a lot of effort but much of it is negated by RW media, radio leading the way, money, etc. and unfortunately much of it has been negated by the fact that the organized 'left' has completely ignored radio. IMO that is what happened to the 'left'- they're/we're getting yelled over and doing little or nothing to fix the major culprit.

[SteveM]

201. I have no problem with expanding radio, but...

any presence in mass media follows a clear, coherent, effective political presence. The Left/liberals does NOT have that. And if that presence is NOT there, then everyone else will have a field day characterizing the bogeys and fantasies of their choice. The bogeys are us.

Personally, I think radio is part of that mass media suite which is fading from the scene; I doubt that the RW's presence on radio has grown much more over the last few years, except to fill in space on stations which can't hack it selling music or even sports.

There is an interesting untold story about the rise of the right on radio. A 29-station radio market in N. Central Florida was once headed by a big FM which had what's called a free-form format; rock hits, local music, live sets, commentary. It was sold to one of the big RW companies (Clear Channel, or some such). It's market share plummeted to near the bottom when they went over to Lush Rambaugh, et al. Perhaps it has risen since, but this company had no qualms about eating it by losing market share and the profits which go with it. Interesting, as this flies in the face of economic determinism. Presently, these type radio stations are not doing so well, however.

Form a coherent presence with clout and power, the media and social networks will follow (though the social networks can be a critical tool in building a presence -- I have a feeling folks in Libya, Egypt and the M. East know more about this than us).

As for money, it's great to have a lot. But you don't need more money than the RW. You only need enough.

Thanks for the discussion.

[certainot]

205. i think you're right, it is fading, but not enough before 2012. your eg. is the same situation that

has played out all over the country and contradicts their common argument that RW radio dominates because that's what americans want.

the fact is that at some level the right recognizes how critical radio is and is subsidizing it. they can sell the idea that the cons are on the rise to get smaller investors involved in radio, sell ad space, etc. but what RW radio is really selling is trillions in war, deregulation, and global warming denial.

and they will keep doing it until americans wake up and shame those individual radio stations in their communities until their local sponsors and universities and pro teams drop off and they can't pay overhead and it becomes clear they are merely corporate soapboxes for paid liars, trying to destroy democracy.

[patrice]

180. 1+++

[KansDem]

138. Here's a list of potential 2012 candidates (other than Dem or Repub)

United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012

[patrice]

192. Are you promoting a Democratic loss on this "Democratic" website?

[KansDem]

200. No, I simply responded to the poster's desire to know of other options.

And I thought this "Democratic" website included anyone with progressive and liberals ideals, whether they were Republicans, Independents, Socialists, and the like.

Besides, patrice, you and I both live in Kansas. Folks here (for the most part) will only vote for the candidate whose last name ends with capital "R." ;)

[patrice]

202. Slay can find out for slayself on this here internet. That's called empowerment.& You know slay is

in KS?

[KansDem]

203. No...

You know slay is in KS?

Slay's profile didn't say where Slay's Place was located.

What are you Slaying? :shrug:

[patrice]

206. chuckle, chuckle . . . you are dis-arming! . . . : - ))))

[SwampG8r]

222. thanks for the great link

i know the wild bunch will be here soon to tell you "they can find it for themselves"
now they will even suppress the transfer of any info they decide is against their agenda
very......democratic... of them in spirit i suppose

[SwampG8r]

221. so trying to get people to say things which might be rule violations

and running to alert to try to get them TS'd is the new strategy?
and i stress might be
at long last does this team of bullies have no decency?

[readmoreoften]

149. Anyone or anything that can save this country from this stupid false dichotomy

between pro-war, pro-free trade Democrats and pro-war, pro-free trade Republicans.

The Republicans will win again eventually. And they always win while they're losing.

It really doesn't matter who you vote for. The Republican agenda will pass whether or not a Republican is in office. The Republican agenda will accelerate whether or not a Republican is in office. The right wing controls this country, the Democratic Party is a paper doll, and the only solution is a serious transformation in the streets--not at the ballot box.

[patrice]

193. Streets alone won't get it. We need good groundwork for good LOCAL candidates & pressure on party

"leaders".

[SwampG8r]

223. so applying pressure to the leaders

is good?
them why do so many wail and whine if a criticism is aired?
why are breasts beaten and names thrown?

[eridani]

87. Me too, However I will not shut up about his Republican messaging

--or his neoliberal economic policies.

[dembotoz]

18. it is not the color of his skin--i did not think much of clinton either

brown, white, purple, green or taupe (is taupe a color?)

i keep hoping for a president that would believe and act on some of the things i hold dear.


That is why i am sick of obama.....

[defendandprotect]

24. Democratic voters also didn't turn out for Clinton in '96 because of NAFTA and moves to right ...

And I would say that 2010 gave us a preview of what might happen in 2012!!

[libodem]

19. Our guy

Came out of the toaster just right. He's the perfect color of year round brown. He has been acting like a Republican. A moderate Republican, but a Republican none the less.

[Poll_Blind]

21. The funny thing is this alleged "new racism" works exactly the same as the "new anti-semitism" does.

The trick is this: Take a stigmatizing accusation (which also has some pretty clearly-defined criteria to be met) and simply expand the criteria to cover whatever you want. Call it the "new (whatever)".

It's amazingly effective at shutting down otherwise legitimate dissent or disagreement on a topic if the participants can't recognize the erroneous conflation quickly enough.

I've been fascinated to watch this little crooked monster trotted out to quash otherwise thoughtful, if heated, discussion on the President's uncomfortable habit of power-capitulating to the Republicans. I'm curious to see how far they can take it before it eats itself up and becomes meaningless.

From my years here, I'd say DU is in some ways like the Nellis Test Range for logical fallacies and discussion suppression techniques. One of the dubious benefits of participating is seeing the very latest nasty long before it hits the streets. Including more than a couple of tactics which never make it off the lab table and into the wild.

PB

[Blasphemer]

88. Ah... you've gotten down to the crux of it

In reading every thread on this subject, it's interesting to know that any facts or objective evidence refuting an inflammatory an unsupported hypothesis is completing ignored. The goal seems to be to make the debate one about race so that the debate about policy is quelled. The timing is rather suspect. The "professional left" has actually been more positive towards the Obama administration and supportive of his more leftward shift. So, what's the goal here really?

[Poll_Blind]

120. Well, assuming their intentions are to be taken at face value, I think the...

...obvious goal is to, as you said, convert a debate on policy to one about motives. Or, in other words, there are a few users here who will expend a great deal of energy in order to quash policy discussions- and at any price. Now not everyone, of course. But you can tell by the argumentative/behavioral tools a poster(s) uses where they want to steer things. Some, for instance, may come into a thread not to discuss or even disagree but to cause enough flames that the whole thread is locked and quash discussion that way. What was described to me many years ago as "the classic grief, swarm, lock". I don't think that tactic gets as much traction now simply because Skinner and the rest of the admins seem to be a lot more receptive to sanctioning or banning posters or groups of posters who are clearly here for something other than a reasonable range of discussion.

But it still persists. That's an example of users standing out by the tools and tactics they use in the discussion.

I am not permitted by the rules to openly speculate further about such organized discussion suppression techniques as one sees here on occasion. But I think everyone comes to generally the same conclusions about it and I think most DUers are far smarter and more perceptive than some would give them credit for.

PB

[SwampG8r]

224. this threadf is a study on your reply

everything you have said is borne out in this very thread
nice shooting

[DirkGently]

217. Very astute articulation. +++

[autorank]

26. k*r I RECOMMEND THIS STRONGLY

When Sen. Byron Dorgan heard that Obama was going to appoint Tim Geithner to Treasury he told him that was the
worst appointment that he could make. It was also the most revealing. Everything after Little Timmy has been
a footnote to that appointment.

[newspeak]

121. thanks autorank!!!

I have my own mind, I don't need to argue with an article. When obama made his appointments, especially regarding the economy, I knew it wasn't going to be doing much for main street.

[autorank]

190. +1

[spanone]

35. this white liberal is ditching no one

[Swede]

44. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

nt

[Ken Burch]

52. This is also, of course, why black progressives have been moving away from Obama all along

n/t.

[woo me with science]

59. K&R

[certainot]

60. until the collective 'left' challenges talk radio no dem/obama critic can

say the left ever got obama's back or is getting obama's back. those 1000 coordinated radio stations are a political 2x4 that is invisible to the left. there is NO challenge to the right's most important weapon.

and if obama has been motivated partially by fear of the right (he needs to grow a spine, they say) only the left is to blame. in a democracy our reps shouldn't have to fear doing the right thing.

evaluating obama without taking talk radio into account is dumb.

[Lorien]

66. Then you'd have to support the reinstatement of the only thing that ever kept talk radio in check

the Fairness Doctrine. But I doubt that you or most here would do that because Rush Limbaugh has convinced even "liberals" that it "curbed free speech" (while it did the opposite).

[certainot]

105. right about liberals fooled by team limbaugh on the fairness doctrine but alternatives can work

global warming doesn't give us time to wait for an improved FD or demonopolization but there are alternatives- the old ones- picketing stations (that has seldom been tried and every issue applies), pressuring universities to get their sports off those RW stations (as it is they endorse the racism and global warming denial), and shaming and boycotting local sponsors in blue communities until the stations can't pay overhead.

also, elevating limnbaugh to true leadership status in the GOP and getting him out from under his rock.

[chill_wind]

119. +100 Including liberals like President Obama and Dick Durbin

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/26/senate-votes-to-kill-fairness-doctrine-but-gop-concerns-remain/

[newspeak]

122. maybe we should not only be protesting wall street

but corporate media, especially faux. Maybe signs about quit "catapulting the corporate propaganda" and networks should be indicted if they make false claims or lie to the public. Oh, wait didn't a judge rule that the media can lie to the public? I remember watching a panel on one of networks about the environment and global warming, not one damn person on the panel discussing the topic had a degree in environmental science or climate-why listen to each other blather when you have no professional expertise on the topic you're discussing?

[patrice]

179. Nailed it! "in a democracy our reps shouldn't have to fear doing the right thing" = There is NO Left

and most of the discussion wants to act as though the radio and media in general have no effect upon the vacuum created by the absence of the Left. The Right doesn't do anything they don't have to do and they KNOW they don't have to do anything, because though we may not be listening to them, they are listening to "the Left".

Permanent Republican organizing bases in lots of churches too.

We're supposed to believe None of that had any effect upon what PO was able to do.

[certainot]

212. "obama's head needs to roll" said limbaugh sept 10, 2008 and there was NO reaction

he created a ridiculous context in which to deliver that line - that obama needed to fire himself- but anyone knowing limbaugh would know what he was doing.

i may have been the only one to complain to a radio station. that's not getting obama's back.

[madamesilverspurs]

72. I'm white, I'm liberal,

and Obama has my full and enthusiastic support.

Sirota, on the other hand, lost me quite some time ago. His agenda, whatever it is, has become quite unpalatable.


-

[Bluenorthwest]

96. So does that mean you support all Obama policy?

Sanctity of Straight Marriage included? That seems to be what you are saying. Sirota, on the other hand, you call 'unpalatable' for unspecified reasons, and that sort of arch and empty comment sends gooseflesh up my spine. You know Obama's agenda involves looking the other way for Bush, and opposing marriage equality because God is in the mix, and that is fine. But Sirota, 'unpalatable'.
'Marriage is for one man and one woman' is palatable to you? Full support?

[patrice]

181. He's using executive power against DOMA on constitutional grounds.

[patrice]

195. Link to the President's statements against DOMA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/obama-defense-of-marriage-act_n_985283.html?1317228764

[TwilightGardener]

76. Who are they ditching him for? Because the policies aren't gonna get

LESS right-wing if he loses, those sillies.

[Fumesucker]

79. True enough, but at least the Democrats will be complaining about right wing policies again..

You have to take comfort where you can get it in this world, the bright side of the Republicans taking it all in 2012 is that it will again be cool on DU to criticize right wing policies.

[frylock]

116. i miss those days..

i really do.

[Dragonfli]

178. The good old days , when one could (gasp) disagree with the Chamber of Commerce and Heritage

Foundation agendas without it being gently (or not so gently) implied that you are a racist or lover of the right.

I miss those days more and more.

[Firebrand Gary]

84. Change does not happen overnight and if it did, by January 2013 it would have been reversed.

I am tuning out all of the Obama criticism that is not pertaining to 2012 strategy.

[NNN0LHI]

86. David Sirota is a dangerous fool who doesn't understand he is playing with fire

Or maybe he does?

Don

[patrice]

182. I think he does, but has discounted the fact that it's not just that there is no Left, it's a vacuum

because what calls itself the Left is, in effect, abandoning PO because it is abandoning PO. He can't do what they want him to do in significant part because they are abandoning him and they are abandoning him because he can't do what they want him to do. It's circular. It's not just absence; it's a vacuum which will kill fire.

[Enthusiast]

93. Kicked and recommended! nt

[treestar]

94. Just another hit piece claiming Obama lost part of the voters

who elected him. It's been tried with every group. This right wing attempt has been going on for at least 2 years - why should anyone continue to let it push them around? People complain about how the MSM lets the right wing frame things but then just lets them do it. Keep talking about what the right wing wants you to talk about - this - rather than the failure of Republicans to do anything to help the economy get better.

[patrice]

184. It's not a Liberal perspective in that there is one and only one view on PO & anything other than

that view is "denial".

[closeupready]

98. This white liberal hasn't made up his mind, and is going to make them WORK for

my vote.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Obama ditched me, long ago, when he decided to go with the

'ex gays' and evangelicals, the McClurkins and Warrens. Obama is openly opposed to the rights of my family. I can not support that, and anyone who asks me to is on the far side of very wrong.

[ThomWV]

102. Great article, but make sure to read it all the way to the end.

K&R

[amborin]

109. KR everyone has a last straw, and for many it occurred long ago

for others, it was more recently....weakening clean air standards...whatever....one right wing move after another

and not even moderately right wing...many of O's moves are FAR right

[patrice]

187. You know what? That didn't happen. Amy Goodman had an EPA Science Committee SME interviewed &he said

Obama stopped EPA from ordering a re-review of the previous 2008 standard setting process, which had lowered the ppm significantly, but apparently not enough for whats-her-name chair of EPA, re-review was stopped because the next review in the 5 year Clean Air Act standard setting cycle begins next year, so they'd be re-reviewing what they had already done in 2007 on science done in 2005 AND doing it again with NEW SCIENCE for the new review at the same time, something that would impose a heavy burden in legal expenses on everyone involved to no good effect since the new standards, based on new science could be as low as or even lower than the change in the 2008 standard that caused the administration to react, with new standard going into effect in 2013.

25 year Clean Air Science Committee subject-matter-expert on Amy Goodman, earlier this month. Look it up if you care about the truth.

[patrice]

191. P.S. I put the video up in DU video section, with notes, just after the interview.

[quinnox]

113. K&R, the real reasons are Obama has governed like a centrist/conservadem

Trying to make his color an issue and distraction from the truth is pretty desperate in my humble opinion. Lets talk about his centrist/conservadem policies, not his (irrelevant) skin color.

[and-justice-for-all]

114. Well, not this one...nt

[warrior1]

117. I'm white

and I am not ditching the President, neither is my brother. This is hogwash.

[creon]

143. You are right.

It is hogwash.
I have no problem with Obama.
I did not have a problem with Clinton either, come to that.

The people here who have a problem would have had a problem with Clinton - or any other Democrat who was elected.

I am going to concentrate on getting rid of my GOP Congressman in Nov 2012.

[creon]

144. You are right.

It is hogwash.
I have no problem with Obama.
I did not have a problem with Clinton either, come to that.

The people here who have a problem would have had a problem with Clinton - or any other Democrat who was elected.

I am going to concentrate on getting rid of my GOP Congressman in Nov 2012.

[Shandris]

124. I feel President Obama DID betray a lot of us in his longtime period of...

...right-wing coddling, under the attempt (although naive and lasting WAY too long) of trying to get them to be reasonable people. (Not to mention the whole SinglePayer thing, that still pisses me the hell off) However, of late he SEEMS to be getting the fire back. Now I know there's a strong possibility that it's just pre-campaign stuff, but barring a Primary (and I don't see that happening), I'm not seeing anywhere else where my vote would have an -effective- purpose. Even a partial left-winger is better than no left wing at all.

Is it the 'Lesser of Two Evils' cop-out? Maybe. But unless there is an -alternative-, it's only a cop-out in theory, not practice. And I'm not seeing an alternative arising.

But to call that racism? That would be a world-class trolling attempt, and ANYONE on DU should recognize that for what it is.

[badtoworse]

126. An executive needs to have leadership skills

Sorry, but Obama doesn't have them.

[kctim]

127. This is hilarious

The people calling EVERYBODY who did not support Obama in 2008, racists, are now being called racists themselves. AND using the same excuse of 'its about policy, not color.'

This is great.
:rofl:

[Major Hogwash]

129. Sirota is 35 years old, and he said that Obama supports rightwing policies. Like DADT, and others

Like George Bush's national healthcare plan.
Wait, Bush didn't have a national healthcare plan.

So, Obama supported the pullout of troops from Iraq.
Wait, Bush didn't want to pull troops out of Iraq.

So, Obama went after Osama bin Laden.
Wait, Bush didn't even want to know where bin Laden was 6 months after 9/11.

Yeah, that damned Obama -- he sure is pushing rightwing policies, ain't he!?!?!

I guess I should send Sirota "The List" of accomplishments so he can read it for himself.
Or have it explained to him, at least.

By the way, Sirota is WHITE.
He has a radio program in Denver.
Call him and talk to him, he'll hang up on you if you disagree with him that Obama is the debbil.

[fascisthunter]

130. thanky you!

[ZombieHorde]

133. Obama was pissing me off before he even took office, but I will still vote for him.

Republicans are cheering executions and the deaths of the uninsured while "booing" science and civil rights.

There is a really big difference between Democrats and Republicans in my opinion.

[MerryBlooms]

156. ^this^ +etc n/t

[pam4water]

135. The article is based on a false pretends. That the majority of white Democrats are a members of the

0.1% rich the control 50% of the nations wealth. The 0.1% can not be majority of white Democrats if you know any basic math.

[creon]

140. I am not

Sirota is not describing me.

Do you want to read hlarious stuff?

Read the comments to the article.

[lillypaddle]

141. Proud to unrec

SICK & FUCKING tired of these people.

[Texano78704]

159. +1

eom

[democrank]

146. David Sirota is right

Of course President Obama has seen a drop in his popularity. He said one thing and did another. Over and over and over.

[dark forest]

150. Dang!!

There sure are a bunch of deleted messages on this thread. Guess some people just can't control themselves when the subject is race.

As for me, I'm as much an Obama man as I ever was. He has advanced the cause of progressivism against some tough opposition. And after all, he's human, not Jesus Christ.

[tpsbmam]

151. And the thing of it is, it's not just "white" liberals......

I have MANY liberal friends who are Latina, African-American, mixed ethnicity, etc etc who are furious with Obama and feel the same as many of the "white" liberals I know. As far as I can tell, the only racism here is on the part of those who claim it's just the "white" liberals or that whites who supported Obama before have different motives than liberals of color for being pissed at Obama.

[Major Hogwash]

186. Ha ha ha ha ha

Typical crapola, "I have a story, it's a true story, please believe me" blah, blah, blah.

Check out the latest polls bud.

[McCamy Taylor]

152. I don't know a single "white liberal" who is ditching Obama. I think the press is making it up.

[AtomicKitten]

197. I don't see it either. Polling doesn't reflect it, except maybe outliers created for shit-stirring.

[Butch350]

155. How do you tell the difference between a white and black name?

Well defendandoffend,

I'm afro-armenian and my name is Farnsworth. Should I change my name to something in Black?

Another thread by a race expert.

[SwampG8r]

225. farnswizzle is what i would use

gets the farnsworth in there mostly but still reps the homeboys
farnswizzle.........nice ring to it

[pnwmom]

157. Great. They'll ditch him so we can have an even more right-wing President.

That makes a lot of sense.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

167. Let's not hold fast to the lesser evils -- let's DRAFT someone like Sen. Bernie Sanders -- !!!

[pnwmom]

168. He won't run because he can't win. Simple as that.

You need money and an organization, and he has neither.

[defendandprotect]

170. No we don't ... in fact, this money deal is a 2-way street -- candidates have to SELL themselves ...

If Democrats would do the right thing and stand up and say they would no longer

take CORPORTE MONEY they would win the election without doing anything more --

and the issue would be buried ---


Same with computer voting -- rather than asking where why the Democrats have done

nothing in a decade abcout them - and they've actually been with us since the late

1960's --

What we need to ask is why ae we still coming out to vote on these computers?

[pnwmom]

174. Sanders isn't interested in selling himself to be President.

You can't draft an unwilling candidate.

[defendandprotect]

208. You're missing the point ... we need democrats who aren't interested in SELLING themselves!!

[defendandprotect]

171. What you seem to be saying is that Obama $$$ would prevent a Sanders win?

[pnwmom]

175. Sanders' lack of money and organization would prevent a win

in the general even if Obama were to step down.

Only someone like Hillary could even have a chance.

[defendandprotect]

207. Hillary is Koch Bros. DLC ... why would you mention her?

And we now have a Dem Party under the control of the THIRD WAY --

advocating that "the base" be ignored -- except of course getting their money! --

and that POPULIST discussions/debate is the equivalent of Karl Rove propaganda !!


That's peer Jonathan Cowan, Pres. Third Way on C-span this morning!


:eyes: --


Actually, I think Sen. Bernie Sanders could be a strong threat to Obama --

and that he could run on a Dem ticket --

[pnwmom]

211. Because she's the only one who could raise enough money and

get an organization going quickly enough to have a chance to defeat the Rethug.

Being run on the Democratic ticket does little to ensure a win. Money and a national organization are key, and Sanders lacks both.

[defendandprotect]

227. Who would give $$ to a Koch Bros. DLC Democrat -- ????

PLUS - - The goal is to avoid any candidate who is pre-bribed and pre-owned

by corporations -- !!!


Sanders has credibility -- Obama has destroyed his -- and 2010 made clear that the

public understands that -- and that was BEFORE he put Social Security and Medicare/

Medicaid on the table --



:nuke:

[pnwmom]

228. Millions of people who've never heard of Koch or the DLC.

Millions of people who thought we were better off under President Clinton than we've been ever since.

[defendandprotect]

232. Wow -- they should find out something about the evils of RW Koch Bros ....

and the criminal Pfizer and Chevron who also financed Dem Party --

Clinton left a lot of landmines -- especially the trade agreements which no one

wanted -- certainly is responsible for much job loss -- and gave us a start on

the housing bubble --

See Catherine Austin Fitts on that -- among others.

From what I've seen here at DU, most posters understand Clinton trade deals were

a huge problem at the time -- pushed despite public will -- and even a bigger

problem now.

There's no way that corporate influence over the parties or our elected officials is

going to work to anyone's benefit -- except theirs!

[patrice]

188. No. Sanders is a realist. He won't do that to us, because he know it won't work, so it will hurt a

bunch of people.

Do you listen to his townhalls on Thom Hartmann?

[ProSense]

169. Hmmmm?

"Let's not hold fast to the lesser evils -- let's DRAFT someone like Sen. Bernie Sanders -- !!!"

Ship sailed!

Bernie Sanders: Bernie Sanders: President "talking the language that the American people...want to hear"

Bernie Sanders: Vermont is in line to receive up to $3.1 million over the next five years as part of one of the country's largest investments ever in promoting good health.

[William769]

161. K&R.

[patrice]

163. I see that we still have not figured out what the modifier PROFESSIONAL means when applied to

whatever.

[Major Hogwash]

183. Do you mean the "professional left"?

Those peeps that make a living by bitching about Obama and the Democrats?
Those peeps?

Sirota declared the Obama administration DOA 2 days before President Obama was even sworn in.
He has a bad case of "sour grapes".

Sirota is only 35 years old.

[patrice]

189. Them. Drive click$ to their web$ite$. Get tweet$. "Leftie" $tatu$ + $$$ determine what they say. nt

Their entire position is circular, because it's not about boots on the ground, longitudinal, accountable grunge work in the trenches of building an effective movement.

It's about them. Not us.

[patrice]

164. Another example of how DU with all of its ANONYMOUS posters thinks it is the center of an awful lot

that it is NOT the center of.

[patrice]

165. Odd how selective some people are when considering possible motivations for what people say.

[ProSense]

166. Because

Why white liberals are (really) ditching Obama...

I lamented how, despite media and political insinuations that whites have become an oppressed group, it is people of color -- and in particular, African-Americans -- who remain the real casualties of discrimination:

You can see in black unemployment rates, which are twice as high as white unemployment rates -- a disparity that persists even when controlling for education levels.

...they're superior to all the people who aren't "ditching" Obama. They're just looking out for the welfare of blacks, which is why they're ditching the President. If only blacks could engage in critical thinking at the same level of "white liberals," they too would realize that black unemployment rates should lead them to ditch Obama.

"We're white liberals, and we're ditching Obama on behalf of blacks."

Wouldn't it be wild if despite these "white liberals" Obama won anyway, and with the support of the majority of the black community?

[JackDragna]

209. You've resorted to vicious name-calling in lieu of arguments.

Where has the argument of "we're a bunch of white liberals who know better than blacks" been made anywhere, with any force, in the liberal community? Who is at the fore-front of this movement? You're race-baiting and using ugly tactics to smear people, as usual.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

172. "I’ve never thought of myself as biracial,” Harris-Perry says. “I’m black.”[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Harris-Perry

Granted, this is from Wikipedia and I don't care enough about petty Mean Girl MHP to dig further. But if it is true, it's curious as to why she doesn't identify with being white. Seems rather rude to her white mother.

[patrice]

177. Sirota makes it clear it's not just the Beltway that has its own isolated media subculture,"denial"

is not the only possible explanation for reactions to his list of PO's crimes that are different from those which he attributes to Liberals.

This assumption that things can be seen ONLY one way and anything that is different from that ONE way is misbegotten is certainly NOT Liberal.

It's is possible to look at not just positives, but also negatives realistically, authentically negative, even outweighing positives if you insist, and still come out in support, even strong support, of a DYNAMIC that has enough room in it to make new factors possible. More evidence of Sirota's bias is seen in the assumption that just because something is a synthesis, a third thing, or a result of triangulation, that does not mean that it is necessarily counter to every principle Liberals identify with. Sirota would do his case much more good if he could demonstrate honesty by at least acknowledging these two possibilities: not everyone who disagrees with his point of view is in denial; and triangulation does not necessarily, in and of its own essence, produce betrayal.

Triangulation does not in and of itself produce betrayal, unless one or the other of the two factors walks away from the results and, therein, could be the real answer to Sirota's "Why white liberals are (really) ditching Obama".

There is no coherent Liberal political establishment, no Left. This creates a motive for Sirota's answer to his own question. And what claims to be trying to establish itself as what might be the Left has decided to do so by demonstrating it's power in a manner that will most effectively and quickly make everyone sit up and take notice, no matter the cost to others. It does so, in this time of thin and fluid margins, with the help of crossover voters/issue-activists from various quarters, and by means of the anonymity of the internet. It does so knowing full well that it lies down with the very vipers it claims to abhor and it persecutes anyone who disagrees as being denialist betrayers of REAL Liberal principles as defined, surprise, surprise, by themselves.

If PO acquiesces, they will claim the win and if he loses they will win in having demonstrated their power (oh so serendipitously in a time of thin margins + national financial distress). This is the REAL reason "Why (what calls itself) white liberals are (really) ditching Obama".

In further evidence of his bias, Sirota avoids mentioning what effect those margins might have upon his value statements. Especially in referring to some movement of Black Americans away from PO, Sirota fails to admit his own assumptions in ascribing that phenomenon to their disappointment in PO's failure to deliver on the demands of "the Left", which he assumes to be Black American's own, and without considering other possibilities, such as a different Black candidate, Herman Cain. Cain has functional financial backing and he supports DOMA, which is as much anathema to a possibly significant, church-based, minority within America's Black communities as it is amongst Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians. It's possible that this is the same (or there is at least some over-lap with a) minority within Black culture that is responsible for attributing the success of the KKK to Democrats and very possibly also has strong Libertarian economic policies and practices, including hiring practices in a community hit hard, very hard, by un-employment.

As a professional, Sirota has created quite a litany, but it isn't stuck together with much more than self-justified assumptions that oh so coincidentally add up to self aggrandizement in somekind of movement that may or may not be "the Left", but IS most certainly up for bids.

[LatteLibertine]

198. Honestly

I'd like to see MHP and JW go onto Rachel's show at the same time and talk their recent issues out.

I think it would be good for all of us.

[patrice]

199. Good idea! THAT would be awesome!!

[JackDragna]

210. Sirota's critics in this thread are doing nothing to counter his arguments.

Instead, it's all character assassination. Is this what Obama supporters have come to? Republican tactics to take down someone who disagrees with them?

[Major Hogwash]

213. I already countered Sirota's diatribe against Melissa Harris-Perry in another thread.

And I would do it again gladly, but she doesn't need my help.

Sirota just got hired at Salon dot com in May of this year.

And if you have EVER read any of Sirota's articles that he has written since December of 2008, you would see that he threw in the towel AFTER Obama was elected to be our President, but before he could take the oath of office.

Sirota declared on January 18th, 2009 -- 2 days before Obama even took office -- that America was being run by a dictator.

That's pretty fucking lunatic stuff, to my way of thinking.
So, I didn't pay much attention to him after that.

[DirkGently]

214. You're not claiming Sirota called Obama a dictator on "Jan 18, 2009?" Because he said no such thing.

If you mean this piece (Sirota, Jan. 18, 2009)

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-18/opinion/17197866_1_power-robert-moses-democratic

Sirota spoke about rising trends of authoritarianism in the executive branch -- pretty hard to discount after the Bush years -- and did criticize some call for administrative shortcuts by the incoming administration. He did not, under any possible interpretation, "declare that America is being run by a dictator."

Nor did he say that or anything resembling that about Obama. Not even close.

The current president reminded us that executives see all-powerful "deciders" when they look in the mirror. And Americans - sans kings to rally around - have been elevating commanders in chief to superhero status well before Barack Obama's Marvel comic-book debut and George Bush's flight-suited "Top Gun" impression in 2003.

In recent years, this culture of "presidentialism," as Vanderbilt Professor Dana Nelson calls it, has justified the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps and a radical theory of the "unitary executive" that aims to provide a jurisprudential rationale for total White House supremacy over all government. But only in the past three months has American czarism metastasized from a troubling slow-growth tumor to a potentially deadly cancer.

"Lunatic stuff?"

Are you referring to another piece? Because if you're referring to this one, you've either misremembered badly, or unconscionably distorted the piece in order to unfairly attack Sirota.

He said nothing remotely like what you said he said.

[Major Hogwash]

215. Yes, that's the one. Sirota is finito as a thinking liberal.

He is finished as his racist tendencies have all come out over the last 2½ years.

[DirkGently]

216. But you make your case based on a wildly inaccurate characterization of what he said?

Edit: I just want to be clear that you obviously don't have to like or agree with the guy. I haven't read everything he's ever done and don't presume to have a comprehensive opinion on his work myself.

But surely you don't feel comfortable dismissing him based on "lunatic stuff" as you call it ... that he didn't really say?

[Major Hogwash]

235. No, that's what Sirota did when he went after Harris-Perry!!!

And thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify that once and for all!!

[SwampG8r]

226. its the DLC tactic made

famous during the clinton administration
if you have nothing to counter what someone says attack them at every possible level
always attack as defense
its the third way way

[TNLib]

241. I agree.

I think white liberals are not as supportive because Obama is not liberal. Non white liberals may be more supportive for cultural or historical reasons rather than Obama's policies.