Like I’ve Been Telling You

I’ve kind of been telling you this for a while, but it is nice to see it in the NY Times:

What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.

When these progressives refer to themselves as Mr. Obama’s base, all they see is themselves. They ignore polls showing steadfast support for the president among blacks and Latinos. And now they are whispering about a primary challenge against the president. Brilliant! The kind of suicidal gesture that destroyed Jimmy Carter — and a way to lose the black vote forever.

Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.

He’s not alone in these thoughts.

*** Update ***

From the comments:

This thread is a shit show fail parade. Cole puts up a post with reasoned assertions for toning down the rhetoric and is met by the same gaggle of assholes screaming about Obama. The commentariat here has gone precipitously downhill and I can’t put my finger on when it happened. EVERY post becomes the same group whining about how much Obama sucks and doesn’t fight enough. It’s like a dickhead colony sent out a scout to figure out a place where they could argue with people and this was the place they found. It used to be snarky fun. Pointing and laughing at glibertarians and the like. Now, it’s just depressing and repetitive. You people are addicted self righteous arguing, plain and simple. Find a better hobby or a better place to do it. I’m begging you.

I couldn’t have said it better. It is draining. It’s like they have decided to join arms with the Republicans and make everything so unpleasant regarding politics that I just tune out altogether.

Just look at this thread. I post a piece telling how a lot of African Americans feel regarding the over the top treatment of Obama. A number of African American commenters chime in and say, “Yes, we don’t think they are racist, but we don’t think other politicians have been treated this way, and we feel that Obama is being treated differently.”

So what do the members of the dickhead colony do?

Loudly scream “Fuck you for feeling that way and fuck you for calling me racist and fuck Obama for being such a weak pussy.” And it is the same five to ten assholes in every single thread. It is getting to the point that reading the comments here is just no fun. I may have to install Cleek’s pie filter to read my own damned blog.






503 replies
  1. 1
    4jkb4ia says:

    Ishmael Reed makes THREATS, I am telling you!
    (Reacting to absurd tweet. John can, of course, mobilize the black vote from darkest WV)

  2. 2
    General Stuck says:

    The Stillers must be losing

  3. 3
    El Cid says:

    A great deal of that column is persuasive, but two parts are pretty unsupported or not evenly logical.

    A ‘progressive’ is mentioned who regards the TeaTards as true grassroots forces and ignores Reed’s raising of the problem of racist and even Neo-Nazi involvement.

    Yes, a few felt that way (i.e., Huffington), but the typical criticism of liberals and ‘progressives’ was that they too often dismissed TeaTards as screaming paranoid racists.

    Second, although it is sensible to see calls for Obama to ‘man up’ (or ‘grow a spine’) as reflecting a context so commonly applied to African Americans throughout their lives, it is not only a fairly common complaint about all Democrats by liberals etc.

    It is also and more significantly the call continually made by the most influential, power-connected pundits for Obama to repudiate the elected liberal Democrats in Congress in order to favor ‘bipartisan’ solutions.

    I.e., Milbank today.

  4. 4
    alwhite says:

    I get it! We should just shut the fuck up and take whatever our masters give us! I’m sure in a hundred years or so they will, in their infinite wisdom, take care of us.

    OK, too snarky but if we simply must agree to accept whatever the Blew Dogs allow us what are the acceptable bounds of conversation? I agree the primary thing is insane but really, what complaints or criticism is OK?

  5. 5
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Sorry to hear that people of color want Sarah Palin to be President.

  6. 6
    Evilbeard says:

    You make it sound unreasonable to be dissatisfied with the President just laying down for the Republicans without a fight. I agree that a primary challenger would be stupid but people are mad and have to vent somehow.

    He should just let ALL the tax cuts expire and then see what happens from there.

  7. 7
    Ajay says:

    Problem with this logic is that you can justify every action taken by any politician. Having a narrow focus never helps. Things need to be and should be dealt on merit. Giving benefit of doubt is ok but telling it like it is, should be acceptable as well.

  8. 8
    Resident Firebagger says:

    Go back to watching the Stillers, Cole. You have about lost it…

  9. 9
    Corner Stone says:

    Thank God he’s the coolest man in the room.

  10. 10
    Ajay says:

    @Evilbeard:

    He should just let ALL the tax cuts expire and then see what happens from there.

    Yup…. That will also show that he has got something besides relatively easy layups.

  11. 11
    edmund dantes says:

    I’m hoping he already has plan for how he is going to deal with a return to normal payroll taxes during the election cycle. He can’t be caught unaware by it because it’s going to be a huge problem, and it won’t be unexpected. It’s been telegraphed how it’s going to play out.

    We’ve already had a preview as to how the Repubs and Dems are going to play a sunset tax provision. If he uses it to reform SS by raising the retirement age/cutting benefits, etc, he has truly sold out the base. There are other more effective and fair ways of fixing SS without doing those draconian moves. At that point, I will no longer be an Obama supporter. Right now I am, and I will fight to get him re-elected even those he’s been a miserable failure on several fronts. He’s still better than the Republican alternative.

  12. 12
    beltane says:

    This actually sounds kind of like extortion and the kind of divisive talking points put forward by the Clinton campaign during the primaries. I think everyone here knows that I am not a firebagger, but talking to non-blogging Democrats lately has been a depressing experience. Demoralized is the word that comes to mind. There are reports that the State of the Union address is going to be all about the deficit, not jobs, and I don’t see how this will help the party.

  13. 13
    General Stuck says:

    He’s not alone in these thoughts.

    So are the Browns losing, so yes, he is not alone in these thoughts.

  14. 14
    Evilbeard says:

    even those he’s been a miserable failure on several fronts. He’s still better than the Republican alternative

    I think that’s a description of almost every Democrat elected to Federal office.

  15. 15
    Corner Stone says:

    Where else are they going to go?

  16. 16
    Sixers says:

    People think Obama owes them. They worked hard to get him elected and now he must do everything they would do especially stick it to their “Rethuglican” enemies. If you refer to the other party that way you are a sports fan not a rational thinker. I’m more than happy he’s not listening to people who think in an us vs them type of way. Shits got to get done.

  17. 17
    Douglas says:

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents.

    Yeah, white progressives don’t know how it feels to unemployed.

    Excuse me while I get another fucking drink.

    (Yeah, blacks and latinos are much worse of than whites… and I can agree with the basic sentiement, that thus they’re more used to being disappointed partly, and can deal better with it… but whites don’t know what it feels to be unemployment? Please DIAF)

  18. 18
    El Cid says:

    @edmund dantes: The tax cuts for the rich (i.e., margins above $250K) will never be allowed to lapse, and once lowered, payroll tax contributions directly to Social Security will never be allowed to lapse.

    The latter will help undermine Social Security for those who have always wanted to cut it down anyway.

  19. 19
    Uriel says:

    Ishmael Reed is the real racist!

  20. 20
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Evilbeard:

    He should just let ALL the tax cuts expire and then see what happens from there.

    Giving everyone in America a tax increase, explicitly contrary to his campaign promises in a way that everyone will be able to see and feel, might play out well for him!

  21. 21
    Roy G says:

    Are they also used to not getting to see linked articles hidden behind a paywall?

  22. 22
    General Stuck says:

    Someday, I hope to learn the art of reading the future. I am so envious at people who can do this, it is almost more than I can bear.

  23. 23
    Kanamit says:

    I think a primary challenge to Obama would be a horrible idea but Jimmy Carter destroyed himself.

  24. 24
    Martin says:

    Clearly, Cole hates white people.

  25. 25
    Uriel says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Where else are they going to go?

    Maybe they’ll jump to the Green party- imagine it, Ralph Nader with returns in the double digits!

  26. 26
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Are we back to this now? Campaign promises as justifications/excuses?

  27. 27
    beltane says:

    @edmund dantes: A lot of people are now convinced that Obama wants to scrap Social Security. These are not people on DKos or FDL, but average Democrats who listen to NPR in the car and watch the evening news. The president did himself no favors by supporting this tax plan right on the heels of the federal pay freeze and the Simpson-Bowles debacle.

    To imply that people are racist because they have justifiable economic fears is very ugly and very wrong and very likely to backfire. A lot of Americans are hurting now and are afraid they will be hurting even worse in the future. Instead of ridiculing these fears, maybe the White House should try addressing them.

  28. 28
    General Stuck says:

    .go Browns

  29. 29
    Joe Beese says:

    I’d like to make sure I understand you, Mr. Cole.

    When progressives abandon the Democratic Party because it works against their interests, they are tantrum-throwing pony wishers.

    If African-American voters abandon the Democratic Party because Obama was primaried, they are… something else?

  30. 30
    Corner Stone says:

    @Uriel: I just find the dichotomy very interesting.

  31. 31
    eemom says:

    John Cole. I will no longer take you seriously — ever, ever again — when you pretend to be exasperated about the constant state of flame warfare on this blog.

    Also too, y’all go read Colbert King’s article about this in the WaPo that I linked to yesterday.

  32. 32
    beltane says:

    @Douglas: That particular talking point has the stench of Mark Penn all over it. Remember during when Obama supporters were all “latte drinkers”? Now it’s his critics who are all latte drinkers. I guess that if you don’t support the Third-Way economic program you are teh evil latte drinker.

  33. 33
    Nick L says:

    Off-topic (sorry), but did anyone see George Will’s latest screed in the Washington Post? He’s seriously defending Bush v. Gore:

    The passions that swirled around Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that ended 10 years ago Sunday, dissipated quickly. And remarkably little damage was done by the institutional collisions that resulted when control of the nation’s supreme political office turned on 537 votes out of 5,963,110 cast in Florida.

    It goes on to attack Gore for subverting democracy, but thankfully he was foiled by the stalwart defenders of the law. Nothing about the Brooks Brothers Riot, nothing about disenfranchisement of black voters, nothing about the total legal baselessness of the decision. Even for George Will, the nonsense is mind-boggling.

  34. 34
    Corner Stone says:

    @edmund dantes:

    If he uses it to reform SS by raising the retirement age/cutting benefits, etc, he has truly sold out the base. There are other more effective and fair ways of fixing SS without doing those draconian moves. At that point, I will no longer be an Obama supporter.

    I’m not sure what else you think is a likely outcome?

  35. 35
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I’m not sure about the racial aspect of progressive discontent, to be honest. There’s an element of progressive politics that gravitates in this direction regardless of who’s in power. There are people who like to draw lines in the sand, and there are people who don’t. There are people who work to maximize what’s possible given political constraints, and there are people who want to highlight those constraints. It all boils down to how you deal with an obstinate person, and how long you try to budge him, and at what point you get sick of the effort. I don’t think there are _right_ answers to these things, just varying levels of tolerance for other people’s answers.

  36. 36
    LTMidnight says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Care to elaborate on your statement?

  37. 37
    James E. Powell says:

    As frustrated as I am with Obama, I am far more frustrated with Democratic ‘leaders’ in the senate and house who simply refuse to take the Democratic position and hold it. It wasn’t Obama who dumped the public option, it was congressional Democrats. It wasn’t Obama who left the question of the expiring tax cuts till now, it was the congressional Democrats.

    Unlike some people commenting here, I remember the Carter years because I was there. I was a Carter volunteer at the Memphis mid-term convention, called to launch Kennedy’s primary challenge. Carter was repeatedly attacked by his own party, starting even before he took office. This was all way before the Iranians took hostages. The big issue was, interestingly, national health care.

    The liberals were furious with Carter and determined to undermine his administration. We all know how that worked out, right?

  38. 38
    Suffern ACE says:

    @beltane: Wasn’t Joe Biden supposed to head some commission devoted to issues of middle and working class people and their economic issues? Whatever happened to that?

    Also, as I’ve mentioned before, in my office of about 150 people, I know of four who were taken in by HAMP and had bitter experiences with it, and they have been talking about it. So when the President announces that this program is supposed to help homeowners and it is a dismal failure for people, is it really they’re fault if they think he couldn’t give two shits about their problems? It would be great if I could counter those examples with people for whom the application process went smoothly, and who didn’t end up feeling worse off than they did before they applied. Anyone know who those people are?

  39. 39
    El Tiburon says:

    What am I missing here? Is the argument that black folks are going to be angry at white folks if We criticize Obama?

    I seriously do not get this. This is one of the more inane arguments I have heard. Does it have something to do with Bill Clinton not being treated this way by progressives?

    Seriously, someone please explain this to El Tiburon.

  40. 40
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Corner Stone: Well, a lot of people want to cudgel Obama for not rescinding those upper-income tax cuts because it was a campaign promise — but not extending the tax cuts for income under $250K was _also_ a campaign promise. I think letting all the tax cuts lapse would _play_ as a massive breach of promise, much bigger than continuing the upper-income tax cuts.

    Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel in terms of policy: part of me wants to say that we all need to be paying more in taxes in order to sustain the social safety-net and other public services, the other part of me wants to say that deficits don’t mean shit right now and whatever can jump-start the economy we should do.

  41. 41
    Zifnab says:

    @Sixers:

    People think Obama owes them. They worked hard to get him elected and now he must do everything they would do especially stick it to their “Rethuglican” enemies.

    They are his enemies, too. They don’t play nice. They don’t want to work together. Their primary goal is consolidating all wealth and power in the hands of a handful of elite corporate oligarchs. Their secondary goal is military conquest of the third world. These are BAD PEOPLE.

    If Obama was having an intellectual debate with academic peers over ideological differences, he’d be handling himself just fine. But he’s not in a polite ideological debate. He’s in a political street fight. Republicans and their corporate buddies actively engage in voter suppression, toxic nationwide anti-Government propaganda efforts, tax fraud, mortgage fraud, embezzlement, breach of countless environmental laws, union busting, and race and class based terrorism. And Obama keeps coming to them as though they are just disagreeing with him on a few textbook disputes.

    As far as I’m concerned, half the Bush Administration should be in jail – practically by their own admission. After the ’10 election, legions of Republicans and Democrats should be under indictment for political bribery. The system is corrupt to the core. It’s only getting worse.

    And Obama wants to dicker over what the 60th most liberal Senator will agree on in terms of federal legislation. They’re not just “enemies”, they’re crooks! Why is Obama dealing so nicely with all these crooks?

  42. 42
    nanute says:

    So, let me see if I’ve got this right: Reed is telling me that if we as white progressive liberals, expect the President to “man up”, he’ll just be accused of being and “uppity nigger”, and it will be our fault?

  43. 43
    eemom says:

    another point worth considering: there are some prominent black folks on the left that REALLY don’t see it this way.
    http://www.bvblackspin.com/201.....ent-obama/

  44. 44
    ornery curmudgeon says:

    There are those who pose as ‘liberal progressives’ and work to undermine that label … (hiya Lieberman et all) so are we never going to be able to see this, and are always to be fighting against ourselves?

    There is a Money Party, filled with cons, and we know that … so why can’t more folks figure out that money buys behavior?

    I suggest a moratorium on in-fighting, because we don’t know really who’s who and also because it doesn’t help our common cause. Destroying the corporate crusader Nader didn’t help Democratic leaders represent the People any better; maybe we can try something else?

    Stiiiillllll too soon?

  45. 45
    ChrisS says:

    @edmund dantes:
    Has anyone that supports the plan had anything to say about how they’ll deal with the payroll tax holiday in the 2012 election season?

    I haven’t heard anything.

    When billionaires and wingnut media personalities come out in favor of the Obama tax cut plan, I’m very hesitant to think that it helps me in the long run.

  46. 46
    Steeplejack says:

    I like Ishmael Reed. He has gotten kind of a raw deal in his career, in terms of recognition and success. This reminds me that I want to go back and reread Mumbo Jumbo, which I enjoyed a lot when it first came out. Would be interesting to see how it holds up. Guess it’s a positive sign that it’s still in print. It came out in 1972.

    And I thought his piece in the Times today was spot on.

  47. 47
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @James E. Powell:

    As frustrated as I am with Obama, I am far more frustrated with Democratic ‘leaders’ in the senate and house who simply refuse to take the Democratic position and hold it. It wasn’t Obama who dumped the public option, it was congressional Democrats. It wasn’t Obama who left the question of the expiring tax cuts till now, it was the congressional Democrats.

    Right. The big divide among liberal/progressive Democrats, especially online, arises from how much you think Obama could have fixed that by somehow bringing congressional Democrats into line. I don’t think he could do much in that area. Other people think he could, either directly or indirectly by rallying the public. I think a lot of center-right Democrats are entrenched and un-budge-able.

  48. 48
    LTMidnight says:

    It’s really funny.

    All people like me have done is give the white liberal blogosphere a friendly reminder that African-Americans still exist in this country and that we as a whole still support President Obama, and you accuse us of calling you racists.

    People like me are letting you know it’s not the “calling President Obama on his shit” that we have an issue with. It’s the “painting his entire presidency as shit” that we have issues with, and you accuse us of calling you racists.

    People like me are letting you know that we don’t appreciate how the “critiques” of Obama and his supporters from the left in recent months have turned nastier, more personal, and more dehumanizing. No different from the crap coming from the other side, and you accuse us of calling you racists.

    People like me are warning you that primarying the first African-American president will not sit well with the vast majority of the most loyal voting block of the Democratic party. Not because we’re fixated on the fact that he’s African American, but you guys have yet to give a reason for not supporting him that can’t be summarized as “He didn’t do what I wanted him to do in the way and time I wanted him to do it”, and you accuse us of calling you racists.

    People like me, whenever you point to some Black guy like Clarence Jones, why supports a primary, as proof that it wouldn’t be racial, we point you to a Black guy that claim African-Americans were better off under segregation. So by your logic, that must mean Jim Crow was just fine, and you accuse us of calling you racists.

    Rather than worrying about whether someone is calling you a racist, why don’t you wonder what would happen to your agenda if the most loyal Democratic voting block was no longer on your side. Why don’t you think about the fact that at no time in recent history have you been able to get a majority of White Americans on to your cause.

    How about concentrating your anger and frustrations on the true problem and obstacles of the progressive movement. Republicans and the broken Senate. Rather than waiting for the president to give you feel-good, comfort food, ideologically rhetoric, how about helping to organize progressive offices in Red States for the long term goal of selling progressive causes in these areas.

    That’s all.

  49. 49
    General Stuck says:

    @eemom:

    John Cole. I will no longer take you seriously—ever, ever again—when you pretend to be exasperated about the constant state of flame warfare on this blog.

    I’m guessing it’s not the flame wars Cole is exasperated with, we have always had those, but the infusion of non stop left wing brain dead dogma that is relentless and increasing by the day, seemingly. At some point, the ban button will need to be used for bad faith scorched earth dialogue on this blog, like any other, or it will become a dogma blog. It would be fine with me, to get the boot as well for commenting here, if it would help save the blog. So long as I could still read it.

    But I agree with the passive aggressive posts on the front pages. Time to shit or get off the pot, imo. This is a private blog, not a government one, and the first amendment does not apply, or only at the behest of it’s owner.

  50. 50
    Cat says:

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all.

    This is some fucking BS. White Progressives aren’t all upper/middle class scions of the upper middle class.

    What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.

    By who? Centrist asshole pundits who seem to have had a hold on political discussion since forever? There are few if any mainstream progressive media outlets anymore.

    Maybe your teachers would have given the black intellectuals bad grades because they are centrist assholes?

    a way to lose the black vote forever.

    Some more Centrist pundit BS. The only time there has been a major shift in core constituencies in the was when the Democrats moved forward on Civil rights and the Dixiecrats left and joined the Republicans.

    The Democratic party isn’t going to ‘lose’ African Americans and the progressives.

    American politics is a choice between the lesser of two evils and for minorities and progressives the Democratic party is the clear winner in this regard, even with centrist triangulation BS thrown in.

  51. 51
    beltane says:

    @Suffern ACE: HAMP helped no one but the banks. And from the viewpoint of the average American, everything that has been done so far was done for the benefit of the banks. People are suffering and afraid and all we’re hearing about is tax cuts for the rich followed by austerity for the rest of us, and now we’re being to told to shut up and do as we’re told or else black people will leave the Democratic party and Sarah Palin will send us off to the camps. It’s not about the base anymore, it’s about the fact that this country is becoming a powder keg of misery and mistrust. The folks in Washington really need to get out more.

  52. 52
    Suck It Up! says:

    Why the fuck do you even bother with this John? Just look at this thread. Filled with denial, dismissive tones, sarcasm and weak justification of what’s going on. Progressives cannot be called out on their issues with race. After all they need some credibility while they accuse every Republican of being racist.

    For the past couple of weeks, its been pretty hard to distinguish the left wing from the right wing.

    You know what? keep it up. Keep pointing it out. I’ve noticed that it exposes an ugly side of the left that they themselves to see so keep it up.

  53. 53
    eemom says:

    @LTMidnight:

    I’m not an expert on fuckheadology, but I think he’s just sounding his usual one note snark horn mocking Obama defenders for playing the Palin card.

  54. 54
    Brick Oven Bill says:

    If you honestly study Barry, he is the black Jim Jones, not the black Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was good at Mathematics.

  55. 55
    El Cid says:

    @LTMidnight: It absolutely has to be considered and kept in mind by white liberals and progressives etc. how certain actions and discussions (as well as policies) are going to not only affect but be perceived by ‘the’ black community.

    Particularly when it pertains to the first African American President.

    (Always being aware that like any other there’s no such thing as one black community.) To not do so is completely idiotic.

  56. 56
    Ana Gama says:

    @Corner Stone: They will stay home.

  57. 57
    WyldPirate says:

    @El Cid:

    Exactly, El Cid.

    I was going to write the same thing as you practically.

    This Reed character cites as his evidence an unnamed progressive and some dumbass that has apparently never read Huckleberry Finn. And the mysterious “some” over the last 100 years–much of which when racism was much more institionalized in society than now.

    Then he has the unmitigated gall to imply that all white people “get it all” and have never felt the sting off being poor or unemployed. White people certainly don’t suffer the level of poverty that people of color do, but we were not all born on third base with a silver spoon in our mouths.

    This is about a respect issue. No one earns respect by being a doormat. If Obama and the Dems get this label–and the Dems already have it-it will be lethal amongst the electorate as it will demoralize many of Obama’s supporters and energize the whack jobs–many of whom sat at home in 2008 (read this for a short take on race in the 2008 election).

    MLK borrowed a page from Gandhi, sure, but he stood up for himself with the quiet repetition of his demands. He didn’t bargain away his principles and say “ok, we’ll give in and you white folk can enslave us just two out of seven days a week again if you will just give us what we want in a few years. How’s that?”

    Weakly argued points and column.

  58. 58
    Suck It Up! says:

    @eemom:

    and so? try listening to what regular black folks are saying and not the black elites.

  59. 59
    kwAwk says:

    I think the truth lies somewhere in between. This same thinking could very well have been used against Obama during times in the past two years when he could have demanded more and gotten it, but didn’t because he didn’t want to be seen as a bitter angry bully.

    But yes it is fair to say that Obama may need to be conservative at certain points because of his race.

    I’ve seen this same thought process played out in more than one place in the past few days, including King and Krauthammer over at the Post, but I have to say that Obama in this regard is not being treated by white liberals any differently than white liberals treated Clinton or Carter were treated. Should he be treated differently?

    He’s actually being judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin which is what we’ve been told over the years is exactly what was supposed to happen right?

  60. 60
    Davis X. Machina says:

    For the past couple of weeks, its been pretty hard to distinguish the left wing from the right wing.

    Deep down, neither of them really believes in the government we have, either because it’s not a monarchy yet, or because it’s been a monarchy for years and we’re too dumb to notice.

  61. 61
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I think a lot of center-right Democrats are entrenched and un-budge-able.

    There’s also this idea that the Blue Dogs do what they do out of a desperate desire to please some corporate oligarchy. There may be some truth to that–they want to make sure the grass is long and sweet when they’re put out to pasture–but a lot of them really believe this shit, they’ve internalized Reaganism. Dianne Feinstein is older and richer than god, I don’t think she harbors any desire to become a lobbyist, but she said she’s worried that extending unemployment benefits will discourage people from looking for work. She’s stupid. So is Evan Bayh.

  62. 62
    Suffern ACE says:

    @LTMidnight:

    People like me are letting you know that we don’t appreciate how the “critiques” of Obama and his supporters from the left in recent months have turned nastier, more personal, and more dehumanizing.

    I’m just going to echo that.

  63. 63
    Cacti says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Sorry to hear that people of color want Sarah Palin to be President

    Good thing the loony white left isn’t so condescending and paternalistic to think that people of color aren’t smart enough to see that only a great white hope can save them.

    Wait, nevermind.

  64. 64
    Uriel says:

    @Suck It Up!:

    For the past couple of weeks, its been pretty hard to distinguish the left wing from the right wing.

    You are not wrong.

  65. 65
    Corner Stone says:

    @LTMidnight:

    why don’t you wonder what would happen to your agenda if the most loyal Democratic voting block was no longer on your side.

    And then what?

  66. 66
    bryanD says:

    “The president, the coolest man in the room….”

    Let me guess. Mr Reed is one those Negroes who affects black plastic horn rim glasses and facial hair and considers himself an agent provocateur while dining with The Man at LeCirque. Secret passion: clothing design.

  67. 67
    General Stuck says:

    @Suck It Up!:

    you pretty much nailed it. It’s not as malevolent as right wing racism, imo, and used more like a desperate pol tactic to shame Obama into paying attention to the liberal ideologues, but that is no excuse, imo. It is ugly, and a year ago, or even six months ago, I would have bitterly defended against charges of liberal racism, and did a few times on RW blogs. Not anymore.

  68. 68
    Cat says:

    @Suffern ACE:
    Re: HAMP

    It would be great if I could counter those examples with people for whom the application process went smoothly, and who didn’t end up feeling worse off than they did before they applied. Anyone know who those people are?

    They were the minority. The majority ended up in worse shape having entered into HAMP.

    By intention or not HAMP was a huge gift to the banks at the expense of homeowners and taxpayers.

  69. 69
    beltane says:

    @Corner Stone: This is what would happen: http://www.calculatedriskblog......99ers.html

    Oh wait, it’s happening already.

  70. 70
    eemom says:

    @Suck It Up!:

    I’m not disagreeing with the post at all. Just thought I would point out that there are other perspectives out there.

    @El Cid:
    @LTMidnight:

    what do you guys think of that link at #43?

    I think it all comes down to LT’s point — the same one many others have made — that disagreement with what the man does is not the same as this frontal assault on his entire presidency that we’re seeing from the left. However, I must say I’ve heard Cornell West on Democracy Now and he doesn’t sound any less furious with Obama than some of our local firebaggers.

    Would he support a primary challenge, though?

  71. 71
    Corner Stone says:

    @beltane: I’m not sure I’m taking your point. Is anyone helping the ’99ers?

  72. 72
    Cacti says:

    And if the white left did succeed with a primary challenge to replace Obama with a white dude true progressive, when said true progressive went on to a Mondale-esque humiliation in the general election…

    The white left would be the first to blame “teh disloy@l blacks” for not supporting the party.

  73. 73
    Sarcastro says:

    This essay was positively friedmanesque in it’s unattributed anecdotal evidence for a patently, demonstrably and laughably incorrect premise.

    Yep. Pretty much what you’ve been telling us for a while now Johnny.

  74. 74
    Corner Stone says:

    @Ana Gama: Stay home? Does anyone believe certain positions will fare better under a Republican administration?

  75. 75
    beltane says:

    @Corner Stone: No. Helping the 99’ers is not part of the Democratic agenda we are supposed to be so fired up about. I am no longer sure what the Democratic agenda is anymore.

  76. 76
    Hal says:

    @eemom

    another point worth considering: there are some prominent black folks on the left that REALLY don’t see it this way.

    Great. So what’s your point? Every time Cole has some posting like this, you find a “prominent” black person who you say disagrees. Black people aren’t surprised about it. Cornell West has had a bone to pick with Obama for some time. And no one in the black community thinks or assumes everyone feels the same about everything.

    We are specifically discussing primary challenges and overall expectations of the Obama presidency, and that is a subject many African Americans will agree on, regardless of whether or not they like “everything” Obama has. And for the record, I doubt you’ll find anyone in the black community who doesn’t have at least some complaints.

    But just because someone in the black community criticizes Obama does not mean they support primary challenges, think Obama is the worst thing since Jimmy Carter, or believe we would be better off with Hillary Clinton as President.

    You seem completely and totally dismissive of the idea that a whole hell of a lot of black would not vote if Obama were primaried and that many in the community feel that Obama is not getting quite a fair shake.

    What I find absolutely bizarre and purposely dismissive from many progressive is the absolute lack of discussion over the affect of a primary challenge to Obama and black voter turnout.

    I’ve seen plenty of discussion on gay voter turnout and no repeal of DADT or DOMA, but nothing on black voter turnout in the same volume. Why is that? If gay voter turnout can effect an election outcome, surely black voter turnout would as well, no?

  77. 77
    4jkb4ia says:

    Cost/benefit thing. Even if John knows this will start a flame war, “SEE! A genuine leftist black person has written this” must have been too good. Stillers are currently winning but game is too close.

  78. 78
    Cat says:

    @Zifnab:

    Their primary goal is consolidating all wealth and power in the hands of a handful of elite corporate oligarchs.

    This describes some Centrist and Democrat politicians as well. Which is the reason Obama has so much trouble even pushing his mild mannered agenda.

  79. 79
    WyldPirate says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel in terms of policy: part of me wants to say that we all need to be paying more in taxes in order to sustain the social safety-net and other public services, the other part of me wants to say that deficits don’t mean shit right now and whatever can jump-start the economy we should do.

    I’m with you on this Flip.

    Generally, I’m a fiscal conservative but socially ultra-flaming-effing liberal on social positions and the “safety-net”. I don’t think we pay enough taxes in America, though given what we demand in services. I particularly don’t think the wealthy pay their fair share.

    On the other hand, I think Keynes had it right. These are bad times and the government has to step up and help us dig out of this morass we are in. Then it has to roll up its sleeves and do something about the staggering income gap that is widening every year in America.

  80. 80
    General Stuck says:

    @beltane:

    it’s hard to have an agenda when the wingnuts are staging process palace coups all over the place.

  81. 81
    Brachiator says:

    @El Tiburon:

    What am I missing here? Is the argument that black folks are going to be angry at white folks if We criticize Obama?

    DougJ recently put up another post about how changing demographics will seal the Republican’s fate. But do you really think that black and Latinos are going to vote Democratic automatically, passively, reflexively?

    There is a difference between criticizing Obama and heaping him with unrealistic expectations that excuses or ignores the stupidity of the Democrats in Congress.

    And some of the more hysterical ruminations from some people that Obama should settle on being a single term president and hand over the reins to someone who more meets the approval of progressives reminds me of a scene from The Dark Knight.

    [Wayne Enterprises accountant Coleman Reese believes that he’s discovered Batman’s secret identity, and is trying to blackmail Fox]
    __
    Lucius Fox: Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands. And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck.

    So, let me get this straight. You acknowledge that the black and Latino vote is essential to getting a Democratic candidate elected president in 2012 and 2016, and yet you want to ignore, dismiss or even mock their concerns?

    Good luck with that.

  82. 82
    Martin says:

    @El Tiburon: The argument has nothing to do with Obama’s race, IMO. It has to do with minorities having had to be patient in politics, and with white males in particular not willing to be patient, not willing to accept that long arc.

    I mean, simply look at two things here:

    1) Obama continues to be blamed (though less so than before) for the failure of DADT to be repealed, even though he’s said with no wavering that he wants it repealed and the reason it’s not repealed could be pinned on any one of 50 other people in the Senate (including Reid, if you are so inclined). I’m not saying that Obama shouldn’t be blamed for any of a variety of things, but blame him for things he has control over, not for things he doesn’t – and the activist left is getting this wrong as often as it’s getting it right.

    2) Obama gets blamed for failure before failure even occurs. Did we lose the tax cut fight? Senate doesn’t vote until tomorrow and the House has indicated they might not even bring it to a vote. Let it play out before the primary threats. And anyone bringing a primary threat has the burden to convince us how that primary candidate would be more successful. Nobody is even attempting that. How would President Grayson get those elusive DADT votes in the Senate? How would they get the GOP to sign onto unemployment benefits without giving something up on taxes?

    The battle worth fighting has always been the long one. The Democrats have won this time and time again, but people forget, because people get acclimated to the status quo. A lot of us are convinced that Obama is winning the long battle, and that will require losing some of the short ones. I think minorities understand that better than the people who expect to get everything they want right this minute, because that’s their history. That’s how it’s always gone for them and they recognize that’s the game Obama is playing.

  83. 83
    mutt says:

    Its not torture/warcrimes/fraud if a black guy does it!
    i get it now……..
    Look- my expectations for this guy was very, very low. He hasnt come close. In fact, he has done great evil.
    Are you people telling me we cant expect…what? human decency? from a man because he’s black?
    WTF.
    the ONLY thing you can say positive about him is that he’s not Huckabee, Palin, or McNuts. That, by itself, dosnt mean I therefore must support him.

  84. 84
    jeffreyw says:

    @General Stuck: It won’t work out for you, General. Trust me on this…I know.

  85. 85
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Zifnab:

    And Obama keeps coming to them as though they are just disagreeing with him on a few textbook disputes.

    I just don’t see this. I see and hear _rhetoric_ about coming together, but just about zero actual coming together. Even this tax-cut deal involved a negotiation, but both sides left complaining about the bullshit the other side wanted. Obama and Democrats have been approaching a small number of “moderate” Republicans because of the new 60-vote standard. I don’t think Obama and Democrats have been approaching the rest of the Republicans, not since they gave it a shot for HCR. So IMHO the principal charge against Obama, that he gives Republicans what they want or sacrifices Democratic priorities for Republican ones, I just don’t see. What I see is Obama giving center-right Democrats what they want, in order to get from 40 or so Senate votes to 56-58, and then trying to cherry-pick Republican moderates to get over the hump. The way people describe what has happened in the last two years, you’d think that Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint were being wooed to vote yes on major priorities. They haven’t been. Almost all the (regrettable) rightward movement is to placate conservatives within the Democratic caucus: Landrieu, Lincoln (RIP), Nelson, Baucus, Bayh (RIP), Conrad, and their silent partners like Pryor, Webb, Carper, Warner, and the other Nelson.

  86. 86
    General Stuck says:

    @mutt:

    This is likely the most miscreant comment that has ever posted on BJ. And that is a high bar to reach. “mutt” excellent handle.

  87. 87
    AhabTRuler says:

    @jeffreyw: &#060golf clap&#062

    Bra-vo!

    &#060/golf clap&#062

  88. 88
    cat48 says:

    Read that earlier and I agree w/every word of it.

    The House members have a serious case of butthurt which makes no sense because Ezra was on Hardball & Tweety got him to divulge that Speaker Pelosi was asked to the negotiation meeting and refused to attend b/c she didn’t want to negotiate with the Rethugs.

    Then House members on CNN w/Crowley this a.m. were sorta silly to me. The prez must come to the Hill and talk to them personally. not gonna happen Then, he must lower his tone and FIGHT for them??

    The last time he went to the Hill, I read they ripped him and DeFazio was the worst & demanded infrastructure spending immediately even though just 4 mos since stim passed. The prez told him he had voted NO on the stimulus and “Don’t forget we’re keeping score, brother.”
    DeFazio has been on my TV on all channels ripping Obama’s economic plan and praising Clinton’s economic plan all week with all of Atwater’s talking pts. So the prez kinda gave DeFazio the shiv by bringing in Clinton to praise the Obama Taxcut plan. Definitely “keeping score.”

  89. 89
    eemom says:

    @Hal:

    You seem completely and totally dismissive of the idea that a whole hell of a lot of black would not vote if Obama were primaried and that many in the community feel that Obama is not getting quite a fair shake.

    fer fucks SAKE. I don’t feel that way at all and I’ve said so many times. I absolutely agree with the statement of which you say I am dismissive.

    And nobody could be more convinced than I am that Obama hasn’t gotten a fair shake. Absolutely he has not. That is one reason I recently put an “I Support President Obama” sticker on my car.

    I wasn’t trying to PROVE anything by mentioning West, et al. I just thought it was interesting.

    Furhermore, it seems to me that NO community would want to be portrayed as “thinking as one,” about ANYTHING.

  90. 90
    General Stuck says:

    @jeffreyw:

    I now haz a sad :( to remain forever in the dark on what will happen. That’s the way the cookie crumbles, I guess.

    edit – and this level of clever, you should share more often with us. :)

  91. 91
    Tonal Crow says:

    And the kick hornets’ nest/whine about stings/rinse/repeat cycle continues, to the benefit of Republicans, Blue Dogs, and bloggers who need more page hits.

  92. 92
    Admiral_Komack says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Then you wake the fuck up.

  93. 93
    4jkb4ia says:

    It is necessary to point out that the whole op-ed was about style and not policies. It was not even about whether eleven-dimensional chess is working out or if the WH should have pushed more behind closed doors when Obama’s getting angry will not change the Republicans’ motivations to defeat him at all.

  94. 94
  95. 95
    GN says:

    The frustrati likes being out of power. Which is why expressing such utter and personal visceral contempt towards President Obama no matter that it risks breaking up the Democratic coalition is seen as unproblematic.

    It’s a lot easier to rail rail rail against the sellouts and opposition while not having to take any responsibility for outcomes, than to participate in a governing coalition. More ego-preserving as well.

    I expect little to no introspection and I expect the voices to become more obtuse (“like, there are like unemployed poor whites too”–okay, who the hell said there aren’t), more shrill (“f- the prostitutionwhore in the WH!”), and more racist (“why do black people expect to be treated differently”).

    This is still a good blog though. Happy Sunday and I hope that this blog is not completely overrun by frustrati.

  96. 96
    El Cid says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Then he has the unmitigated gall to imply that all white people “get it all” and have never felt the sting off being poor or unemployed. White people certainly don’t suffer the level of poverty that people of color do, but we were not all born on third base with a silver spoon in our mouths.

    I wouldn’t say that. It is certainly a realistic presumption that by ‘progressive’ Reed is indicating more prominent public figures. That’s what I assumed. I don’t think he was talking about white workers in general.

    It is relevant, though, very much so, that unemployment in the black community is something like 17% for standard unemployment numbers, but BLS doesn’t do U6 employment by race. However, it has to be a good amount more.

  97. 97
    Cat says:

    @Martin:

    Obama continues to be blamed (though less so than before) for the failure of DADT to be repealed

    If Obama isn’t to be blamed for legislation not passing why is he to be lauded when legislation does pass?

  98. 98
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @eemom: Cornell West would support a primary challenger provided he was named “Cornell West”.

    Love the man like a brother — fellow DSA brother, and all — but he does have his little weakness.

  99. 99
    Cacti says:

    @Hal:

    I’ve seen plenty of discussion on gay voter turnout and no repeal of DADT or DOMA, but nothing on black voter turnout in the same volume. Why is that? If gay voter turnout can effect an election outcome, surely black voter turnout would as well, no?

    Even the gay community gets to play “blame it on the blacks” for their political frustration.

    Prop 8 passes in California, and what group is first to get the finger of blame pointed their way?

    Why, the group that makes up a whopping 7 percent of the state’s population.

  100. 100
    Sarcastro says:

    The white left would be the first to blame “teh disloy@l blecks” for not supporting the party.

    So now we have “progressives” who think the tea-party is a genuine grass-roots and non-racist movement and leftists who are Democratic Party loyalists.

    Like fucking bizzaro-world around here.

  101. 101

    Point taken.

    The tax deal still blows.

  102. 102
    Brick Oven Bill says:

    Read the poetry of Ishmael. Here is his most famous work:

    Beware Do Not Read This Poem

    Ishmael Reed has made his living as a professor at the University of California-Berkley. Maybe Martin knows him.

  103. 103
    GN says:

    @El Cid: you are correct; it’s without question that black unemployment is, and has been for quite some time, far higher than that of whites. The idea that whites and African Americans are on even footing economically is ridiculous. A frustrati fantasy.

  104. 104
    Phoebe says:

    @Corner Stone: Where are they going to go? Home. Back to not voting at all.

    I was registering people to vote in a black neighborhood in St. Louis in 2003. So many of them told me, “What’s the point? It’s going to get stolen anyway”, referring to the Bush/Gore nightmare. My pat answer — which worked exactly once — was, “They can steal it if it’s close, but if it’s not close, then they’re stuck. So at least vote to make it not close”.

    So what I’m trying to say is this: There is a demographic of black people, a significant one, who really and truly think the game is rigged, they are screwed, and it’s pretty much pathetic to get your hopes up. They are way more cynical than your average white progressive hippie fighting The Man. You have NO IDEA how much Obama becoming president — from winning Iowa on, actually — really changed that perception. I see this in kids I teach, particularly. It was just huge.

  105. 105
    General Stuck says:

    @Cat:

    If Obama isn’t to be blamed for legislation not passing why is he to be lauded when legislation does pass?

    He isn’t. that is always Pelosi riding to the rescue, pulling victory from the jaws of “weak”

    The Nancy who I adore btw.

  106. 106
    Gina says:

    @Suck It Up!: I keep thinking of the TV show “Lost”, where Ben tells the flight 815’ers “We’re the good guys” after some Others-led raid or another.

    FWIW, the radical feminist group I was part of back in the early ’90s was the one that catalyzed greater exploration of race issues. It was a conscious effort on the part of some longtime members to address the fact that while we presumed to speak for all women, we had very few (count ’em on one hand) blacks or Latinas as members. They did a whole Resisting Racism teach-in, and it was a huge deal in my life.

    Confronting the inner rationalizations and unconscious prejudices, when you figure you’re the one on the right side of the issue, takes some serious soul-searching. It’s not super fun, but like lancing a boil, it’s something you come out the other side of for the better. But you start to see stuff that you used to be totally tone deaf about in other white folks that you really liked, and it gets…weird.

    I ended up moving to a mixed neighborhood in Brooklyn, best choice I ever made. I was able to meet people from all walks of life, tons of different cultures and backgrounds that I’d never really known on a personal level before. White people can literally go their whole lives without any meaningful relationships to anyone of color, if they choose. Weird.

  107. 107
    Corner Stone says:

    @Admiral_Komack: Ha! Then what jackass? Then what?
    Gonna stay home? Gonna enable Republicans? Gonna vote Nader?
    Tell us Admiral.

  108. 108
    John Cole says:

    I’m wondering how long it will take before some of you get it. No one here is calling you racist for disagreeing with the President. No one.

    All I have been saying is it is quite clear to me, at least, that a lot of people in the AA community, particularly well-educated professionals in their 20-50’s, who are looking at the nasty, personal, screaming hostility to the President from his own side, just two years after he assumed the office in the middle of one of the biggest clusterfucks this nation has ever been in, and are wondering what the fuck is going on. And a lot of them are wondering why these attacks are almost as nasty as the stuff coming from the right. And more than a few of them think, fairly or unfairly, that this kind of shit would not be happening if Obama was white.

    And every time we try to point this out to you, the same shitheads get all butthurt, claim we are calling you racist, and come in here and whinge and moan because the most important fucking aspect of democracy in your eyes is the need to continuously trash your President if he doesn’t do exactly what you want when you want it.

    Because you are fucking babies. I think a lot of you looked at the Bush years, and saw an absence of criticism from Republicans, so now you’ve decided that the way to “keep it real” is to savage your own President at every opportunity. That, and some of you have decided that the key to moving the overton window is by attacking the left from the left, ignoring the fact that it is the right stopping your goals.

  109. 109
    Hal says:

    @Cat

    If Obama isn’t to be blamed for legislation not passing why is he to be lauded when legislation does pass?

    Because that’s how politics works?

    If DADT is repealed, then Dems as a whole will be lauded. Obama will be lauded for signing it, and get the usual “this occurred while I was President” recognition typical for all Presidents.

    But specifically with DADT, isn’t it as much a failure in Congress if the Dems can’t get enough votes as it is with the President?

  110. 110
    GN says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Co-signed. I understand the point that black people do not operate as a monolith (excellent point!)…but…Can we please please please not pretend that Cornell West and Tavis Smiley represent mainstream black views of this POTUS? They both have their strengths but analyzing the man in the WH just isn’t one of them (and this has been going on since the inauguration; this is not new).

  111. 111
    El Tiburon says:

    @Brachiator: @Martin:
    Look, I understand and appreciate the general thesis that a black person is held to a different standard than a white person in this country. I get that and I have no issue with it and believe it be so in most instances.

    Perhaps as a white dude I don’t get it and never will. As far as the argument that if this keeps up “black people won’t reflexively vote Democratic,” all I can say is ‘join the club’.

    Oh how I wish we had someone else to vote for.

    FWIW, although I’m a slightly higher, middle-class white male, I still feel my economic and political struggles are more closely tied to minorities. I mean, I am closer financially to those making $30,000 than those making a million.

    I need unemployment and Social Security and public education and healthcare to be strong and affordable because I plan on having to rely on most if not all of these institutions at some point in my life.

    I still don’t get the argument.

  112. 112
    geg6 says:

    While I find this column to be poorly argued and full of compltete and utter bullshit about white progressive/liberal people, I also don’t support primarying Obama. That would give the WH to the Teabaggers on a silver platter.

    Personally, I will continue to criticize the president when warranted and praise him the same. Lately, he’s done plenty to criticize and nothing at all to praise. Perhaps he should change that ratio and the crazed critics will shut up. And it’s not just the professional progressives who are pissed after this week, it’s the rank and file ordinary Dems who are starting to get angry. And none of the people I’ve talked to are putting in racial terms, not even dog whistles. Weak is weak, regardless of color. And that’s a problem.

    And before someone tries to condescend by telling me I’m too young and don’t remember the Carter/Kennedy debacle, I already said I don’t want a primary challenge and I worked as a volunteer for both of Carter’s campaigns.

  113. 113
    Thoughtcrime says:

    black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years.

    Funny that in all these years I’ve never seen Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas called any of those by the MSM.

    Maybe I just haven’t been paying attention.

  114. 114
    El Cid says:

    @eemom: It never is and never has been the case that the entirety of any community by some group definition feels and thinks the same way or perceives their interests the same way.

    You’ve had plenty of black Marxists who decried institutional racism and the racism of white liberal and soshullist movements, who would certainly not have maintained arguments in a defense of a Democratic President of any race without criticizing, often fiercely, his capitalist and non-Marxist agenda.

    Take the very, very angry Glen Ford and his Black Agenda Report blog. If you want to hear furious denunciations of Obama and his supporters by an African American, there you go.

    Obama doesn’t really want folks to take the long view of his time in office. His modus operandi after every debacle is to claim to have rescued bits and pieces of the Democratic agenda from GOP savaging: a health care bill that, in total, is worse than none at all, a financial “reform” unworthy of the name. He early in his term set in motion his infernal deficit reduction commission, knowing it would attack social spending across the board, so that he could later “rescue” selected programs from extinction and claim saviorhood. Obama will claim to have “saved” extension of unemployment benefits by this week’s “compromise” with the Republican minority in the lame duck Congress when, in reality, it is Obama’s center-right modalities of governance and back-channel dealings that have allowed the GOP minority to behave like a majority.
    __
    The overarching truth of the last two years Is that Obama has been at constant war with the New Deal and the left hemisphere of his party, acting as Wall Street’s Trojan Horse in the White House. Tuesday’s press conference starred an unrepentant, unreconstructed, center-right, corporate operative who sees his primary duty as destroying what remains of the Democrat’s progressive legacy. And the first term of the disaster is less than half over.

    Certainly not representative of the African American community in general nor the 90% of African Americans voting for Obama.

    And pretty unconvincing or ludicrous for a lot of people, black or otherwise. But he’s not on the national stage, so it’s very different to discuss.

  115. 115
    GN says:

    @Cat: POTUS for the first time in history has a broad consensus within and outside of the military that it is highly appropriate to repeal DADT legislatively. His grassroots organization is working the phone and email for votes. He shouldn’t get credit for that? Because frustrati insist on kneecapping this legislative session thus providing the GOP with an excuse for voting against repeal?

    He should be critiqued where warranted (he could have done more to stop discharges early on), but he should also be given credit where warranted.

    Everything is not either/or.

  116. 116
    Corner Stone says:

    @John Cole: Meh.
    People are scared to death John Cole. People from all backgrounds. And scared/angry/frustrated people don’t give a shit who it is in the WH if they aren’t seeing the answers they need.

  117. 117
    Elie says:

    @LTMidnight:

    That was spot on — and from the gut — great rant

  118. 118
    cat48 says:

    HE DID NOT LAY DOWN FOR REPUBLICANS

    Late July 2010: Democratic leadership from the House and Senate gathered for an in-person meeting on the Hill. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said he would fight for a vote for the middle class cuts. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed as well. Pelosi laid out her preference for a vote, saying, “We think we can make this case.”

    August recess: Congress then left for summer recess and members got an earful from constituents about the sagging economy. Leadership and staff have multiple calls on tax cuts. Administration officials and Vice President Joe Biden start talking more frequently about why Democrats want to extend the cuts for the middle class.

    Sept. 2, 2010 President Obama, Pelosi and Reid held a conference call focused on tax cuts. Two Hill sources said Obama asked the leaders what they wanted to do, allowing them to state their preference. Both Pelosi and Reid told Obama they wanted a vote before the election, the sources said.

    “The White House was listening to the hill to see what the next steps would be,” one source said.

    Sept. 7, 2010: Obama, Pelosi and Reid held a second conference call. “It was clear that for everyone the priority was passing middle class tax cuts,” a leadership source said. They talked about the deficit as well, with a particular focus on reminding voters the high-income tax cuts would add $700 billion to the deficit. Obama told the House and Senate leaders that he would be outlining his position in detail in the coming days.

    That day, there was a brief discussion among staff to dub the new plan the “Obama tax cuts for the middle class,” since the “Bush tax cuts” would expire and, by design, be over.

    Sept. 8, 2010: Obama spoke in Cleveland, detailing his position in clear terms and criticizing Republicans.

    Sept. 10, 2010: Obama gave a press conference, telling reporters that Republicans should vote with the Democrats on the middle class cuts since everyone is in agreement on those and try to negotiate for the upper income brackets. For lower level Democratic offices, Obama’s comments were like laying down a marker, and they were welcomed. “That was the first indication we had that he felt strongly about one thing,” an aide said.

    Sept. 12, 2010: Minority Leader John Boehner took Obama’s bait, saying on CBS’ Face the Nation that he would vote for the middle class cuts if that were his only option. Each of our sources said this was a major turning point in the debate. “That was the moment, oh yeah,” an aide said. “The Republicans blinked.”

    Sept. 13, 2010: Democrats jumped all over Boehner’s comments, and the Republicans quickly moved into damage control.

    Sept. 14, 2010: Congress returned to session. Stan Greenberg presented the House Democratic caucus with a poll showing tax cuts are a winning issue for November. Pelosi pled with nervous members to frame it back home that they are for the middle class and Republicans are for the rich. “A lot of people were impressed,” one aide said.

    At the same time, members in purple districts grew more adamant, and Rep. Jim Matheson (UT) complained at the caucus to Pelosi that the cuts should be extended in full.

    Sept. 15, 2010: The GOP sounded a note of unity on tax cuts and called for the current tax rates to be frozen in place. Things started to fall apart for Democrats as 31 conservative members (including Matheson) sent Pelosi a letter asking for a vote on extending all of the cuts. Leadership still talked about the possibility, but more members start clamoring for an early adjournment. House Democrats don’t do a formal whip count because it’s looking less likely they can pass the tax cuts.

    Sept. 22, 2010:Pelosi and Reid have one in a series of conversations as it appeared that Reid was concerned about vulnerable Democratic senators. Several senators who aren’t even up for reelection seemed to be breaking away from the original Democratic position.

    Sept. 23, 2010: House leadership realized the caucus was too spread out to form a consensus. Leaders planned one last pitch for the next morning.

    Yesterday: In the morning, all signs pointed to abandoning ship. TPM breaks the news that the Senate was going to scrap its plans to vote before Senate Democrats headed into their caucus luncheon.

    During the lunch, several senators spoke up and pressed Reid to have the vote.

    A source familiar with the meeting said Baucus spoke, along with Sens. Al Franken, Bob Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and John Kerry. Those Democrats said they asked Reid to call for a vote “to show contrast and show Democrats stand for the middle class.”

    But bowing to pressure, Reid formally announced the vote won’t happen at the end of the day. The House announced its schedule for next week will include just two days of voting, Wednesday and Thursday.

    Democrats quickly formed some talking points, and joined the White House in blaming the Republicans for not taking a vote.

    “It wasn’t until last night that we knew 100 percent the Senate would definitely punt on it, but it’s still not clear if we do that too,” a House aide said.

    Today: Pelosi told reporters a vote could still happen before they adjourn next week, though most observers felt it remained unlikely.

    Digg

  119. 119
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos… know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.

    If I’m understanding the point correctly, Obama has to adopt a conciliatory tone with Republicans because he is black. That may or may not be true, but even if it is that’s hardly a ringing endorsement of the consequent policies.

    Maybe I’m wildly off-base, but let’s follow this logic through. When Jackie Robinson broke into the Major Leagues he was told to keep his mouth shut and just play baseball as hard and well as he could. By doing so he would show the larger society that blacks belonged in every part of it and white acceptance would follow. Well, white acceptance has followed to a degree. It took ~15 years for nominal desegregation, de facto segregation still persists in many places, and ~60 years later a black man can be elected President — though, if I’m reading the column correctly, he has to do the Jackie Robinson thing all over again.

    60 years from now I expect I’ll be dead, so if that’s Obama’s timetable it doesn’t have any particular relevance to me personally. Looking at the needs of the society I’ll some day leave behind, I’d be more sanguine about this line of argument if I had a high degree of confidence that Western Civilization will even last that long. And I find it ironic that an ethnic stereotype, that of the cool black man, has to be invoked in support.

    So again, if I’m reading the column correctly, Obama hasn’t lost blacks and Latinos and is playing a long game — a very long game — and progressives should just settle down because it will all work out in the end. Maybe he’s right. We’ll find out in a mere 60 years.

  120. 120
    Sixers says:

    @Zifnab:

    You will never be satisfied until there are mass round ups of republicans for corruption and war crimes. No wonder Obama doesn’t care if you are upset. You aren’t rational. He’s trying to move forward not settle old grudges or legislate the past. You are to the left what the “new world order” conspiracy nuts of the right are to their party.

  121. 121
    Dee Loralei says:

    @LTMidnight: Bravo sir or madam! Bravo!

  122. 122
    General Stuck says:

    @geg6:

    I’ve talked to are putting in racial terms, not even dog whistles. Weak is weak, regardless of color. And that’s a problem.

    Bullshit. You only started using weak when called on the “pu%%y shit you and others were dropping steamy piles with.

    Hiding behind “weak” now, is just adoption of a plausibly deniable code word.

  123. 123
    El Tiburon says:

    @John Cole:

    And more than a few of them think, fairly or unfairly, that this kind of shit would not be happening if Obama was white.

    As long as no one is calling us (but not me) a racist. If they keep it to just “thinking” that we are racists.

    Then allow me to speak for me and me only:

    As a white male from the south, I criticize many of Obama’s policies because I think they suck donkeyballs.

    Unlike George W. Bush, who I grew to hate with a passion, I would sincerely enjoy sharing a beer with Obama and even a smoke. Yes, I admit, I do enjoy a cigarette on occasion when consuming an adult-style drink.

    Furthermore, let me say, I believe President Obama has done many great things in this disastrous time brought to us mainly by Republicans (mostly white ones BTW). But, President Obama, I just can’t get past that so many of your policies are disgusting continuations of your predecessor. So I am going to call you out on them. I hope not to attack you personally. I do not claim to be color-blind, yes, I do have my prejudices and foibles, as we all do.

    Finally, President Obama, I hope you hear our voices – from the white to the brown to the black – that we want better from you; that we once believed in you. And we want to again.

    Thanks. El Tiburon.

  124. 124
    Tim says:

    Man…this post and this editorial are even more reverse-racist (no white progressives have been unemployed or had difficulty making Christmas bountiful) and codepent Obama worshiping (“coolest man in the room”) than your other recent foolishness, Cole.

  125. 125
    El Cid says:

    @John Cole: Ignoring how the African American community sees political activities and arguments by various white sectors is crazy.

    It is, of course, especially important when you have the first black President. (Not counting that bullshit Clinton joke.)

    One thing I’ve been thinking is that if it’s truly much more loud or angry or whatever against Obama then Clinton for those publicly doing so, maybe it’s because the situation of the country is so dire and plenty fear that the ‘wrong’ decisions now could make things even worse.

    It doesn’t mean this would in any way deal with what one’s actions and arguments will seem to be to black Americans. Like so many things, actions and arguments and discussions which white people may entirely not intend to be racist or offensive, I don’t know too many white people who can’t remember either having done just that or seen someone else do so.

  126. 126
    Nick says:

    @Evilbeard:

    You make it sound unreasonable to be dissatisfied with the President just laying down for the Republicans without a fight.

    I guess those months he spent pushing Congress to pass a fucking bill weren’t “fighting”

  127. 127
    John Cole says:

    As long as no one is calling us (but not me) a racist. If they keep it to just “thinking” that we are racists.

    I give up. You can lead a horse to water…

  128. 128
    Cat says:

    @El Tiburon:

    I still don’t get the argument.

    Because you are looking at it from the wrong direction, the bottom up.

    If you look from the top down you see huge disparities that can only be the product of continued discrimination. They probably want to keep it that way. The less competition the better and if you keep the upper class homogenized its more likely to keep its hold on power.

  129. 129
    ruemara says:

    This is the tax cut compromise.
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index......38;id=3342

    And for those who don’t get what this op-ed is about I will attempt to convey what he means. This isn’t a meritocracy and when the options are all or nothing, too many people are going to suffer if it’s nothing. Since there’s a gun to America’s head, everyone is now getting to be black. Blacks and latinos welcome you to what they’ve been living in America for the past few decades. We’re sorry it kinda sucks, we’re sorry the first minority president isn’t John Shaft. We’re sorry that Congress wimps out or is just damn crazy. But…we’re not sorry that we’ll take something over nothing and we’ll consider all those principled stances that we should be holding fast for, if someone on the side of principles can offer some relief.

    See, also, John Giotti’s role in his community.

  130. 130
    Nick says:

    @geg6:

    Lately, he’s done plenty to criticize and nothing at all to praise

    as is the case always to most of you.

  131. 131
    GN says:

    @cat48: Thanks for posting a reminder of what really took place, but I have very strong doubts that these facts will penetrate. The outrage against President Obama is taking place on a visceral level and I don’t care how many people try to deny it or insist otherwise.

  132. 132
    oondioline says:

    I don’t want to criticize Obama because black people might get mad.

    Yeah, that makes fuckin’ sense, Cole, you loon.

  133. 133

    So if the firebagging leftists feel a line is crossed beyond which they can no longer support the Democratic party they are traitors and will be responsible for electing President Palin. Meanwhile, if black Dems feel the same way the firebagging leftists are traitors and will be responsible for Dems losing the black vote forever.

    Just another way to tamp down disagreement and hold a gun to the head of people who are insufficiently loyal. (Or maybe it’d be more accurate to say a gun to the head of the country to threaten the same folks.) I guess the whole “can’t vote against Dems or you’re electing President Palin” thing is out the window now that it’s fine to admit on the front page of this blog that you’d vote for the Republican candidate if you could do it over again but this is still going strong. John Cole can express a desire to have a GOP Senator elected — not just that he’d rather have voted for Raese, but that his hope was that he’d get elected and then lose 2 years later — and that’s fine. Black Dems could react to a potential Obama primary by leaving the party entirely and that’s fine. No criticism from the CW crowd around here for either of those, only for the hippies. I’m waiting to hear how it’s the liberals’ fault that Cole now wishes he voted for a Republican.

    I don’t support the idea of a primary but this level of screeching about it is ridiculous and juvenile. A couple years ago Fox, et al suggested that black folks only voted for Obama because of racism and that was absurd and offensive. Fast forward a bit, now the shoe’s on the other foot and it’s so self-evident to some of you that black people are voting for Obama because of his race that it doesn’t even merit acknowledgement. It’s just taken as a given, and the justification seems to be that right-wing assholes have been mean to black people for a long time — so obviously black people would find it sensible to bail over to the right-wing assholes if anyone else on the left has the temerity to be upset with Obama. Weird how when Hillary voters did that it turned into a concept that’s mocked around here to this day.

  134. 134
    Tim says:

    @El Cid:

    Seems condescending, even insulting, in the extreme to imagine that the only thing AA’s can see or take into account when it comes to Obama, is the color of his skin.

    It should be remembered that Obama is also half white and his genetic blackness is not descended from slaves. Ergo, as a white American I have just as much in common with him racially as any black American.

    To assume that thinking AA’s are going to immediately cut obama massive slack because he’s black is really appallingly arrogant. As if they have no standards.

  135. 135
    salacious crumb says:

    a black guy wrote that NY Times article, so obviously he biased towards Obama and so it doesnt count.

  136. 136
    Lolis says:

    @LTMidnight:

    Yep, sounds about right. I have read amazing things on “liberal” blogs all about the president’s secret thoughts on gays, the poor, you name it. The president apparently always wanted the Bush tax cuts to remain and to give rich people’s estates a huge tax break. Gee, I wish I could read the president’s mind.

    For those of you that want Obama to say No Deal, you do realize that many people have no idea that Making Work Pay has been giving them extra income each month. Come January 1, lower income people will have their taxes go up and that extra twenty dollars means a lot to them. Does that mean that I think Obama got a good deal on the tax cut compromise? No. He was negotiating with nihilists who would have been glad to hurt Obama’s base, the ones who actually need this tax cut to get through the hard times.

  137. 137
    Mrs. Polly says:

    @Douglas: DIAF? For that? Good lord.

    The unemployment figure for blacks was 16% last month.

    13.2% for Latinos. 8.9% for whites. That is some pretty significant pain being felt in minority communities, but nobody is saying that whites don’t know what unemployment is like. I don’t know where you even get that out of his article, since you allow his main point.

  138. 138
    Ross Hershberger says:

    @John Cole:

    I give up.

    Fortunately, this is unlikely.

  139. 139
    WyldPirate says:

    @General Stuck:

    Hiding behind “weak” now, is just adoption of a plausibly deniable code word.

    Ok, Cole. here is Mr. Ringleader that throws out the term racist at every opportunity.

    When he’s not calling for a purity purge..

    or having reading comprehension problems…

    or just being a dumbass in general..

  140. 140
    Cat says:

    @Hal:

    But specifically with DADT, isn’t it as much a failure in Congress if the Dems can’t get enough votes as it is with the President?

    He does share the blame with congress, but it seems nobody will admit it. The meme is always that its some lone hold out screwing them over.

  141. 141
    agrippa says:

    @James E. Powell:

    I agree 100%.

    It is congress – not the WH – that did not pass the legiclation that needed to be passed. Blame them, not Obama.

  142. 142
    different church-lady says:

    @Sixers: werd. As in, “Every freakin’ werd in the dictionary, and several foreign language dictionaries too.”

  143. 143
    oondioline says:

    When I see someone huffing the dong of the rich, I see the huffing of the dong, not their fucking skin color, Cole, you loon.

  144. 144
    GN says:

    If John Edwards had this number of accomplishments as well as a politically unfeasible second stimulus on the table the response would be utterly and completely different.

  145. 145
    Tim says:

    @LTMidnight:

    Oh please. Of COURSE you are fixated on the fact that Obama is black (only half, remember). That is what matters to you more than anything else about him; his performance, his promises, his integrity, his reliability, his humanity.

    All else pales against the color of his skin.

    Pathetic.

  146. 146
    Cat says:

    frustrati

    WTF is this and why is it in the vernacular?

  147. 147
    kwAwk says:

    @John Cole:

    And more than a few of them think, fairly or unfairly, that this kind of shit would not be happening if Obama was white. And every time we try to point this out to you, the same shitheads get all butthurt, claim we are calling you racist, and come in here and whinge and moan because the most important fucking aspect of democracy in your eyes is the need to continuously trash your President if he doesn’t do exactly what you want when you want it.

    The problem with that logic Cole is that the treatment that Obama is receiving is easily shown to have happened in the last two white democratic Presidents.

    The great example used in how using a primary against a sitting President is counter productive is Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter is white. Was in 1980, and still is today.

    So the arguments that Obama is being treated unfairly because he is black falls flat on its face with little or no help from anybody else.

    But this is how it has been since Obama won Iowa in 2008. We are expected to treat him differently because he is black. We simply are told now that if we don’t support Obama and think he’s the greatest, then black will abandon the Democratic party in droves. Why? Because Obama is black.

    The racism in this instance isn’t coming from white liberals, its coming your side.

  148. 148
    BlizzardOfOz says:

    Insane. Absolutely insane. We can’t run the country because people might racially stereotype the President. This post is Exhibit A, being a loyal Democrat rots your brain.

  149. 149
    Martin says:

    @Cat: I didn’t say he should get full credit for it – though he does deserve a bit in this case. The caucus as a whole should because they’re the ones who fought for it and ultimately will have accomplished it.

    Obama’s role has been a bit more than usual for a President in a legislative battle of this type because he did bring Gates and the Joint Chiefs along. I don’t know how easy or hard that was, but the Dems have a lot more working in their favor at this moment because it was done.

  150. 150
    Cat says:

    @GN:

    Everything is not either/or.

    Funny, progressives are being painted as totally against Obama. As a whole.

  151. 151
    General Stuck says:

    @johnny walker:

    What a crock, per usual. Painting pictures of the real motives of Obama supporters, according to Obi Wan Oracle Johnny Walker. All we are saying is don’t resort to the same level of nastiness the wingnuts use against Obama, and especially picking their RW quasi racist frames to do your attacking. So long as it continues, some of us will paint the scarlet R on your foreheads, just like we do the wingnuts.

  152. 152
    jwb says:

    @beltane: Were you ever sure about the Democratic agenda? I ask, because I never have been. I think a clear agenda is one of those casualties of the Democratic coalition government. What we are seeing right now is the party at war with itself. The left wing (which I would say is not really the same as the base) doesn’t get that the Dems can’t win with a disenchanted corporatist wing (which I would say are not really the same as the Blue Dogs). The corporatist wing doesn’t get that the Dems can’t win with a disenchanted left wing. The only thing that makes them pretend to get along is fear of the goopers, and evidently at the moment that fear is not so large that they are willing to set aside their differences.

  153. 153
    WyldPirate says:

    @Mrs. Polly:

    I don’t know where you even get that out of his article, since you allow his main point.

    from the Reed article:

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout.

    I’m not going to look up the data, but I would imagine if you normalized unemployment based on education levels, then black, Latino and white unemployment levels in the High School and under demographic are much closer.

  154. 154
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Tim: I have heard more than one argument that the urgency of passing this or that bill before the new year is that it will make Christmas better, or save Christmas this year. That part made sense to me.

    I mean, come on. Sherrod Brown was on the frickin’ TV last week lambasting the President for not trying to take 8 or 9 Republican Senators on a tour of their districts to see the poor people struggle over Christmas so that those Republicans would, what, open their hearts and change their minds for the holiday season and vote to extend unemployment? Because Christmas is going to be harder this year?

  155. 155
    El Tiburon says:

    @LTMidnight:

    All people like me have done is give the white liberal blogosphere a friendly reminder that African-Americans still exist in this country and that we as a whole still support President Obama, and you accuse us of calling you racists.

    People like you? What kind of person are you?

    And please explain why you think the ‘white liberal blogoshpere’ needs a friendly reminder that African-Americans exist in this country?

    When the WLB was tossing every invective imaginable against Bush, what was that about? Were we secretly upset that he was a blue-blood? Or did African-Americans hate Bush because he was white?

    Is the argument we wouldn’t be having this conversation if we were discussing President Ken (Whitey) Smith?

    You know I get and understand why a black man would support Obama sight unseen. I don’t quarrel with it. Yeah, I got a sweets-spot for Larry Bird; at least I could pretend to emulate his moves on the basketball court during pick-up games. But I still recognize Jordan as the Best Ever.

    So, personally, I think all of you “people” like you, whatever that means, need to step the fuck off. I don’t need any reminding of African-Americans and I resent the accusation in the biggest way. I always considered that a progressive was a progressive was a progressive. I could care less if you are black, female or somewhere in between.

    As long as we all believe in the same basic ideas about governance, then it’s all good.

  156. 156
    Emerald says:

    @Sixers: AMEN!

    (Much as I’d like to stick it to the Rethuglicans.)

    BTW, here’s a nifty graph on the tax deal: http://blog.dearmrpres.com/201.....omise.aspx

  157. 157
    eemom says:

    There is another point I have made before that deserves mention: if Hillary were President, and did the exact same things Obama has done — or as is more likely, took even more “centrist” approaches — I fucking promise you that the LAST thing you’d be hearing from “the Jane Hamshers of the left” is the word “primary.”

    What you would be hearing is neverending shrieks of MISOGYNY and SEXISM at critics of the Prez — every day, all the time.

  158. 158
    General Stuck says:

    @WyldPirate:

    You are correct. I have no problem whatsoever labeling liberal use of the RW frame of inadequate black man, as a racist tactic, as well as any adopted code, and calling those who continue to use it after learning what it is, a racist. Stop it, and so will I.

  159. 159
    Nick says:

    @kwAwk:

    So the arguments that Obama is being treated unfairly because he is black falls flat on its face with little or no help from anybody else.

    That’s not the point. No one BELIEVES Obama is being treated unfairly because he’s black. What he’s suggesting is that when the blue-blood white elitist liberal decides to primary Obama, black voters will see it as white elitist liberals who many believe secretly harbor racist feelings and are treating the black President in a manner they would never treat a white one. They’ll look at the situation and say “wait a minute, the last Democratic President came out of the first midterms having lost Congress, with low approval ratings and people doubting him. He didn’t get a primary. Why is Obama, who accomplished more, facing one” There’s no way they won’t see racism at play there, even if it isn’t (and i’m not so sure it isn’t)

    The minority vs. white “elitist” intraparty war reared its ugly head twice here in New York; in the 2001 NYC mayoral race and the 2002 Governor’s race.

  160. 160
    Cat says:

    @ruemara:

    We’re sorry that Congress wimps out or is just damn crazy.

    You leave out the obvious and simple answer, Congress, both Republican and Democrats, is filled with psychopaths who are interested in consolidating their own power and wealth regardless of the costs to others.

  161. 161
    WyldPirate says:

    @General Stuck:

    inadequate is inadequate irrespective of whether someone is white, black or purple with green-mother-humping polka dots you idjit.

  162. 162
    GN says:

    @Cat: I certainly am not painting all progressives as anti-POTUS. Polling doesn’t bear that out in the slightest. I take issue with the excesses of the national and new media which is chock full of maniacal, over the top, visceral disdain towards the President masquerading as the thoughts of the Democratic base. One example of too many to count: http://i4.photobucket.com/albu.....le/tom.jpg

    You’re trying to deny the obvious.

  163. 163
    ChrisNBama says:

    I can’t say as I share your powers of prognostication, John, but I’ve arrived at the same conclusion.

    Where I work, most of my co-workers are African American. I’m one of the few whites in the work place. And I can tell you right now that folks are talking about the resistance Obama is facing by his so-called base and they’re not happy about it. Moreover, they are internalizing it as racial animosity towards the President (right or wrong).

    Democrats would be writing off the African American vote, possibly for good, should they decide to mount a primary challenge against the first African American president.

  164. 164
    jwb says:

    @General Stuck: This isn’t a wingnut problem. If the Dems actually feared the wingnuts, we’d drop the bickering and turn on the wingnuts. No, instead we decided it would be better to have a fucking civil war inside the party, so the wingnuts can come in and mop up the divided opposition.

  165. 165
    Emerald says:

    @LTMidnight: Preach it.

    Maybe it’s time the “progressive” elites started listening to their base.

  166. 166
    kittypat says:

    @geg6 “Weak is weak, regardless of color. And that’s a problem.”

    That is where you go off the rails imo. I hear and read the word “weak” differently. As a person of color let me tell you that what you consider “weak” may not be what I consider “weak”. Perhaps my life experience has been different than yours, my mother raised us alone and was often spoken of in hushed tones “as the poor little thing who couldn’t speak up for herself” but the poor little thing who couldn’t speak up for herself negotiated her way through the twists and turns of a culture foreign to her and triumphed by putting food on the table for us and keeping us alive.

    The President is not weak, he has negotiated, and I believe that’s what smart people who want results in the real word do.

  167. 167
    Corner Stone says:

    @GN:

    If John Edwards had this number of accomplishments as well as a politically unfeasible second stimulus on the table the response would be utterly and completely different.

    You’re absolutely right. When Clinton triangulated his way to Heaven the “left” never said ary a word against him.

  168. 168
    El Tiburon says:

    @John Cole:

    I give up. You can lead a horse to water…

    Look, it ain’t me, it’s the argument.

    Is it wrong to speculate? Wrong not to.

    I get it: NOBODY is calling anyone a racist. It’s just that many people are simply wondering if race is a component to all of this newfangled criticism that the president is receiving – and goshdarn it all- so much if it is so personal.

    So not only is this NOT about racism, you can’t even talk about if it’s racism.

    First rule of “White Progressives Better Be Careful” is to not talk about race. It is sad that this component has been injected into the discussion about Obama.

  169. 169
    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people) says:

    @edmund dantes:

    I’m hoping he already has plan for how he is going to deal with a return to normal payroll taxes during the election cycle. He can’t be caught unaware by it because it’s going to be a huge problem, and it won’t be unexpected. It’s been telegraphed how it’s going to play out.

    He could keep the rate at 4.2% and raise the salary cap to $250,000 from $106,800. It’s within the realm of possibility to do this. And then raise the rate back to 6.2% in 2013 with the cap still at $250,000. I can dream.

  170. 170
    John Cole says:

    I don’t want to criticize Obama because black people might get mad.

    /sigh

  171. 171
    Corner Stone says:

    @johnny walker:

    John Cole can express a desire to have a GOP Senator elected—not just that he’d rather have voted for Raese, but that his hope was that he’d get elected and then lose 2 years later—and that’s fine.

    I LOVED it when he did that! One vote down and Cole’s out the fucking door!

  172. 172
    General Stuck says:

    @WyldPirate:

    inadequate is inadequate irrespective of whether someone is white, black or purple with green-mother-humping polka dots you idjit.

    Not when you use it in personal, and especially sexual terms. Though it does not surprise me one whit, that you don’t get it.

    You wanna say Obama’s pol tactics are inadequate, that is fine. But when it becomes personalized, you will hear from me and maybe some others about what we think about that.

  173. 173
    El Tiburon says:

    Also, answer me this:

    When we progressives bitch-slap Lieberman, is it because he is a Jew?

    And I do believe I’ve called Harry Reid a lot of names that questioned his manhood, was that because he was a Mormon?

  174. 174
    GregB says:

    This must be the Huffing Dong Post.

  175. 175
    fasteddie9318 says:

    So are we actually going to wait and see if there really is a primary challenge to Obama (a serious one, please; Mike Gravel does not count) before the party is torn apart in a cataclysmic upheaval, or is the whining about a possible primary challenge by a few unknown liberal bloggers enough to precipitate said cataclysm on its own?

  176. 176
    General Stuck says:

    @jwb:

    It is thoughtless and flailing politicking by liberals who should know better. The fact that it is directed at a dem president who happens to be the first black one of those, makes it especially despicable, imho. So you are right. It is not a wingnut problem, it is domestic to the left.

  177. 177
    Hal says:

    @Tim

    It should be remembered that Obama is also half white and his genetic blackness is not descended from slaves. Ergo, as a white American I have just as much in common with him racially as any black American.

    Really? You think you and any mixed race person in America have had the same experiences with regard to race? Do you actually think people look at Obama on the street and think “hmmm, he’s half white. I guess I won’t cross the street.”

    Please. Genetics don’t trump outward appearances, and this countries history of racism never excluded someone because one parent was white, unless they themselves actually appear white.

  178. 178
    cat48 says:

    This isn’t a threat; it’s honestly how I feel. He’s been accused of anything & everything by members of his own party since sworn into office. Criticize him for something he’s actually done…….good place to start…..what he’s actually done. Not what you perceive him to have done or what you fear he might do in the future. I think that’s fair.

    My family & I discussed this a few months ago. Why can’t he be treated at least as well as Clinton who actually failed at Healthcare? AA”s stuck with him thru all the crap he put the party thru just like we’re sticking with Obama. Why can’t he be given the same chance Clinton was??? Nobody primaried him after all his fuckups & impeachment. That’s what my family wants to know??? WTF??? It’s like he’s not a magic negro so he must go?

    What would we do if he’s primaried and weakened?? This is not a threat. As a family who’s always been loyal to the party, we would be crushed. We’d simply stop voting for anyone. Look, we’re NOT calling anyone racist. . . .we’re asking that he be treated equally, that’s all.

  179. 179
    Cat says:

    @Nick:

    What he’s suggesting is that when the blue-blood white elitist liberal decides to primary Obama, black voters will see it as white elitist liberals who many believe secretly harbor racist feelings and are treating the black President in a manner they would never treat a white one. They’ll look at the situation and say “wait a minute, the last Democratic President came out of the first midterms having lost Congress, with low approval ratings and people doubting him. He didn’t get a primary. Why is Obama, who accomplished more, facing one” There’s no way they won’t see racism at play there, even if it isn’t (and i’m not so sure it isn’t)

    OMFG thats even worse. Saying Black Dems can’t tell the difference between criticism and racism… Thats pretty damn vile.

  180. 180
    stevenson says:

    @Suck It Up!:

    Exactly. Bunch of hysterical children with zero grasp in reality. Racists too. Many of them. They’d never dare call a white Democrat president half of the shit they say about Obama. Over the past months they just became a disgusting group, willing to take the ball and throw the entire middle class under the bus over their obsessive desire of revenge.

    They’re worse than the idiots from the other side, because they should have knows better.

  181. 181
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Corner Stone: What “Left” under Clinton? I don’t remember that there was much of a Left then…my recollection is that much of the Left fell apart in the early 1990s, and for the most part didn’t reappear until 2002…

  182. 182
    silentbeep says:

    @alwhite: “I agree the primary thing is insane” Criticism is o.k. primary thing is insane: two different things. Not sure what the problem is.

  183. 183
    kwAwk says:

    @Nick:

    That’s not the point. No one BELIEVES Obama is being treated unfairly because he’s black. What he’s suggesting is that when the blue-blood white elitist liberal decides to primary Obama, black voters will see it as white elitist liberals who many believe secretly harbor racist feelings and are treating the black President in a manner they would never treat a white one.

    Let me see if I’ve got this? Nobody thinks Obama is being treated unfairly because he is black, except if he is primaried then black voters will see it as a racist statement by liberal white voter because no white President has ever been primaried except Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush?

  184. 184
    parsimon says:

    John Cole quoting in the OP:

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all.

    I haven’t read the thread.

    I must say I find it frustrating to hear that white progressives are getting it all. That is not the case.

  185. 185
    WyldPirate says:

    @General Stuck:

    You wanna say Obama’s pol tactics are inadequate, that is fine. But when it becomes personalized, you will hear from me and maybe some others about what we think about that.

    Oh, horseshit. Just big fucking steaming mounds of green, steaming, horseshit, Stuck.

    You act as if claiming someone has no balls–which equates to someone lacking the courage of their convictions which is the equivalent of ceding one of your primary positions on an issue, or trading things away w/o prompting or before hitting the bargaining table– is a fucking racial epithet. That’s fucking absurd.

  186. 186
    GN says:

    @Corner Stone: I’m no scholar but there were complaints; just not this level of vitriol for much less of a concession. You would think that President Obama killed someone’s mother rather than played “let’s make a deal” in which he traded a broken campaign promise (a set of tax cuts which aren’t good for the economy and with which the majority of Americans don’t agree) for some major concessions.

    Had Speaker Pelosi brokered this deal would she right now be called a selloutprostitutionwhore weak dumb dora etc.? No. This is personal towards this President and yeah, we’ve noticed.

  187. 187
    stevenson says:

    @El Tiburon:

    You never said about Lieberman half of the ugly crap you throw at the president. Sadly, you just can’t see it.

  188. 188
    nancydarling says:

    @Brick Oven Bill: BoB, I hate people calling President Obama “Barry” almost as much as I hate women being called “cunts”.

    As for JC’s post, I am always amazed that Black folks are still not over their long, unrequited love affair with the USA and the Democratic party. Skilled black hands built the antebellum south—carpenters and stonemasons, etc. Would Old Massa pay the Scots-Irish to do a job he could teach his slaves to do for free? I don’t remember the percentage, but a lot of early Kentucky Derby winners were ridden by black jockeys. After the civil war, they were systematically shut out of every trade and skilled labor avenue except maybe the Pullman porters. Tulsa was once known as the Black Wall Street because of its wealthy, professional black citizens—so white folks burned them out. There was that place in Florida also that I can’t remember the name of.

    The point is not that white people are not suffering economically with un/under employment these days. The point is that blacks and other minorities have been pushing for some kind of economic justice for over a hundred years. They have been making progress, but it has been little steps and not the whole enchilada for all those years. I am also amazed Old Massa has been able to keep the wedge between working class whites and blacks: he’s not sitting on the veranda drinking bourbon and branch water, but he is firmly ensconced in his Wall Street corner office. If we are ever to get out of this mess, we are going to have to learn to hang together. I just hope the center holds long enough to get all this shit (peak oil, climate change, financial collapse, etc., etc., ad infinitum) figured out and solved; otherwise we are all facing a real dystopian future.

    President Obama is far from perfect as all presidents are, but I believe he is working hard for us against a lot of truly malevolent power structures. I would have preferred a public option for health insurance. Since I am flying to LA this week to be with my daughter as she has her other hip surgery, I am damn grateful that we got what we did, as Blue Cross couldn’t cancel her after the first surgery in April.

    I don’t see any Dem or Independent out there who shares all my liberal values who stands a ghost of a chance of getting elected. Kucinich, anyone?

    As I’ve said before, let’s get out and block and tackle for our guy instead of running interference for his opposition.

  189. 189
    Martin says:

    @El Tiburon:

    Look, I understand and appreciate the general thesis that a black person is held to a different standard than a white person in this country. I get that and I have no issue with it and believe it be so in most instances.
    Perhaps as a white dude I don’t get it and never will. As far as the argument that if this keeps up “black people won’t reflexively vote Democratic,” all I can say is ‘join the club’.

    Um, that’s not my thesis AT ALL.

    My thesis is that the current President is playing a long game toward a better America rather than a short game toward a stronger Democratic party. My experience is that minorities better appreciate the long game – particularly because they are constantly fucked in the short game, so they don’t lose so much sleep over it.

    By comparison, the more privileged left are impatient. They want progress right now, even to the point that they want to win the battle before it’s even been fought. It’s not that they are freaking out over the outcomes of these legislative battles – they’re freaking out over the villagers analysis of the optics of it. It makes you wonder if they really give a shit about the outcomes at all, or are really just worried about the appearance of being on a losing team.

    It wouldn’t matter if Hillary were the one making this long fight – the viewpoint would be the same. It’s not the President’s race that is the variable here, it’s yours, mine, Cole’s, ABLs, and every other voter out there and how they view politics in America. The villagers turn it all into a contest to win the news cycle, and you guys can afford to go along with that. The folks that have been waiting for legislative results for decades simply don’t see things that way.

    That’s why I think DADT and DOMA get such different treatments. The people freaking about DADT aren’t affected by DADT at all – it’s all optics to them – all about their team winning something, without really caring what that something is. DOMA has a MUCH broader impact on the public, something that people aren’t so willing to play the media game with and are much more patient with.

  190. 190
    jaywillie says:

    White progressives can afford the luxury of their self-righteous posturing.

    If the outraged ideologues ever learned to effectively express their criticisms, they might win an argument and exert genuine political influence. That they glibly chide those who call-out their vitriolic rhetoric as accusing them of racism just goes to show how indoctrinated the idea of victimhood is imprinted on many white leftwing ideologues, who have never had to personally overcome institutionalized inequality yet imagine that their college-educated life of Starbucks and Birckenstocks is just that.

  191. 191
    Buck says:

    @jeffreyw:

    I know what you mean.

    waaah… complain… SHUTUP!waaah… complain… SHUTUP!

    I hope ABL puts up another pet-post soon.

  192. 192
    NR says:

    @cat48:

    Nobody primaried him after all his fuckups & impeachment.

    Just a guess, but that’s probably because the impeachment happened after Clinton had already won a second term.

    Clinton’s successor, Al Gore, DID get a primary challenge – from Bill Bradley.

  193. 193
    Admiral_Komack says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Um…you could vote for those Democrats you like and leave the spot for President blank.

    I’ve lived under Republican rule and survived, and the way the electorate is going there MAY be a President Palin in 2012.
    And IF that happens, you will come back to this post and go NYAA NYAA rather than paying attention to what John Cole, LTMidnight, and I are trying to tell you.

    Fake-ass progressives, you primary President Obama at your peril.

  194. 194
    Corner Stone says:

    @GN:

    Had Speaker Pelosi brokered this deal would she right now be called a selloutprostitutionwhore weak dumb dora etc.? No. This is personal towards this President and yeah, we’ve noticed.

    Are you kidding me?

  195. 195
    WyldPirate says:

    @cat48:

    Clinton was??? Nobody primaried him after all his fuckups & impeachment. That’s what my family wants to know??? WTF???

    First, Obama hasn’t been primaried. Second, plenty of folks were pissed at Clinton on the left but stuck with him. He went out with the highest approval rating of any President in modern history. Third, Clinton couldn’t be primaried after he was impeached–he couldn’t run for another term because he was impeached in his second term.

  196. 196
    Cat says:

    @GN:

    I certainly am not painting all progressives as anti-POTUS.

    I didnt say you were, I said they were being painted as such.

    And an anonymous person posted something the internet being held up as an example there are racist progressives???

    I never said there weren’t racist progressives, I said the charge progressives, white in particular, are attacking the president due to racism was BS. There are always a few examples, but if you believe as a whole its true you should really rethink your position.

  197. 197
    Jules says:

    hahahahaha
    That was a great read, but what is even better is the progressives “I am so not a racist and we do too get the bluez” in the comments is awesome.

    (I see the NYTs had to shut off the comments.)

  198. 198
    Hal says:

    El Tiburon

    You know I get and understand why a black man would support Obama sight unseen. I don’t quarrel with it. Yeah, I got a sweets-spot for Larry Bird; at least I could pretend to emulate his moves on the basketball court during pick-up games. But I still recognize Jordan as the Best Ever.

    And what Black man was that? I recall Hillary actually being more popular amongst black voters than Obama in the beginning and only picking up strong support once he started winning.

    But hey, 10 points for being completely dismissive, patronizing, throwing in a basketball reference, and for this gem of a straw man argument:

    When we progressives bitch-slap Lieberman, is it because he is a Jew?

  199. 199
    PanAmerican says:

    Same old strange fruit.

  200. 200
    PS says:

    @WyldPirate: I would be more likely to respect your argument if you made one, rather than throwing around insulting language like a little kid throwing a tantrum.

    D-minus for deportment. (That’s to get us back on topic.)

  201. 201
    General Stuck says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Like Cole said, you can lead a horse to water…

    In your case, more like a jackass to water.

    I pay no attention to what you say widlythang. none whatsoever, nor you hackneyed tired insults. Debating you is like brainstorming wizards at the local pool hall. Measuring dicks, and judging farts.

  202. 202
    Corner Stone says:

    @Suffern ACE: If you don’t recall the absolute shit Clinton caught then I’m not sure what else to say to you.
    The people who think Clinton escaped unscathed for his actions and outcomes are ignorant or seriously deluding themselves.
    His impeachment gave him a Halo Effect to some degree.

  203. 203
    Elie says:

    @nancydarling:

    Damned well said, damned well said. And Ruemara, upstring…Martin as well…

    I don’t have to say much, just read the very very thoughtful and right on comments here.

  204. 204
    ino shinola says:

    Please don’t tell me that we’re back to the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

  205. 205
    Corner Stone says:

    @Admiral_Komack: Pobrecito.

  206. 206
    Michael says:

    On the upside, GOP treasonous and anti-democratic obstructionism could effectively stall any and all legislative efforts at incremental reforms, leaving Obama alone with his DoJ to play with.

    If I were him, and bored because none of my proposals are getting through congress, I’d play with it a whole lot, especially in the financial, medical provider and pharmaceutical sectors of the economy.

  207. 207
    Cat says:

    @Martin:

    My thesis is that the current President is playing a long game toward a better America rather than a short game toward a stronger Democratic party.

    If this is the case he will veto any bill that has a reduced SS payroll tax included in it. This is the foot in the door that will allow for the reducing of benefits and/or raising the age of receiving benefits.

    Until something changes in US politics no tax cut will ever expire or be rescinded.

    Unless you don’t think SS makes a stronger America.

  208. 208
    srv says:

    @John Cole:

    and are wondering what the fuck is going on

    Progressives whine their fee-fees are hurt and may take their ball home, and that causes non-firebagger non-“elite” members of the Latino and AA community to whine about their fee-fees being hurt and taking their ball home “forever.”

  209. 209

    @James E. Powell: “It wasn’t Obama who dumped the public option, it was Congressional Democrats.”

    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress......interview/

    “In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two “working assumptions.” “One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans,” Daschle writes. “The other was that it would contain no public health plan,” which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers.”

    “I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:

    DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others.

    Possible rationalizations include, “Well Daschle walked this back so we should ignore this and assume the retraction is entirely true.”

  210. 210
    fasteddie9318 says:

    I’m trying, but I’m really not sure where this mythical, warned about primary challenge is coming from. Wouldn’t anybody hoping to seriously primary his or her own party’s incumbent president have to be raising money and laying the groundwork, like, now? Is there any evidence that any major player (and, again, a nutcase like Gravel can’t be what you’re all up in arms about) is even considering such a thing?

  211. 211
    FlipYrWhig says:

    As Corner Stone is pointing out in his deadpan way, the left _did_ give Clinton a hard time, for basically 8 years, especially on trade and financial-sector issues. That’s partly why I don’t think that “left” criticism of Obama is particularly racialized. I think instead that “left criticism” tends to follow a certain pattern, which involves a commitment to the idea that the way to be “left” is to stand up for principles and go down fighting for them if necessary. That’s not the only way to be “left,” of course, especially when it comes to electoral politics in a country that doesn’t have that many people in it who feel the same way they do, but it’s the way they favor, and it bubbles up every time there’s a Democratic president.

  212. 212
    Merkin says:

    @El Tiburon:

    When we progressives bitch-slap Lieberman, is it because he is a Jew?

    no, but some Jews did think the liberal attacks on Lieberman were a sign of antisemitism on the left.

  213. 213
    homerhk says:

    I don’t remember this level of vitriol etc. thrown against Clinton who didn’t just triangulate after 1994, but failed on healthcare and gays in the military beforehand. I loved Clinton because he seemed to want to fight for the right things. I prefer Obama because he seems to want to achieve the right things.

  214. 214
    GN says:

    @Corner Stone: I am absolutely not “kidding.” Where is the angst drama and noise re: the legislative Dems (including a rumor that Feingold was one of them) who blocked the WH’s desire to hold a standalone vote on the tax cuts previous to the election? There were complaints and critiques but absolutely NOTHING like this spectacle. Ditto re: legislative Dems and Gitmo. Selective rage.

  215. 215
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    What if Obama is primaried by another person of color? Who do we blame then?

  216. 216
    sherifffruitfly says:

    Oh cool. Have we started calling the author an oversensitive reverse-racist yet?

  217. 217
    Sharl says:

    There is a lot to criticize about how President Obama is conducting things – his aversion to the wheeling-&-dealing that is a distasteful but necessary part of any national politician’s job is my big problem with him (NPR had what seemed to be an all-too-rare thoughtful story addressing this). My assumption has always been that he chose Rahm as his first CoS because he wanted to duck direct personal involvement in this grungy aspect of the job. He prefers to “rise above the fray”, to paraphrase a comment in that NPR story; imaging how things would have been if LBJ had felt that way!

    Having said that, and to add to Ana Gama’s succinct comment @56…

    If seeking precedent for a scenario wherein demoralized non-anglos stay home during an election, folks might want to consider Kathleen Kennedy-Townshend’s ill-fated – via self-inflicted fatal wound – 2002 campaign for governor of Maryland. She took the large population of black folk here for granted, selecting as her running mate a white guy who lived in a gated community in Annapolis, who had to change his registration from R to D just to be eligible. Sure, by all appearances ADM (Ret) Charles Larson was a decent enough fellow, who seems to have genuinely earned his distinguished reputation, but I don’t know what KKT and her advisors were smoking when they thought adding him to the ticket would win over Eastern Shore (and Appalachian western panhandle) independents and conservadems.

    Anyhow, hellooo Gov. Erlich (R), 2003-2007. Oh, and you could have also said ‘howdy’ to his lieutenant governor Michael Steel; though actually, as current RNC chairman, that one has worked out to be a nice piece of schadenfreude pie for us MD Dems who saw the sleazebag in action during the 2002 and 2006 campaigns.

    Oh man, were MD black politicos pissed! And some still are to this day, e.g., my former County Exec., Wayne Curry. What a fine fuck-you-very-much from KKT & Co. Jeez, we do have at least a few minimally corrupt politicians in this state, and some of them are even people of color! Needless to say, this brick to the head from voters who stayed home in 2002 made an impression on state (anglo) Dems, who managed to not repeat this mistake in subsequent gubernatorial elections.

    Bottom line – yes it is possible to demoralize even folks who are used to being left out, or given table scraps. And they will select the option that doesn’t exist on most ballots: None of the above.

  218. 218
    Nick says:

    @kwAwk:

    Nobody thinks Obama is being treated unfairly because he is black

    None on the left I mean.

  219. 219
    Jack says:

    Sorry, but Blacks are…what?…80% Democrats? I hardly think they’ll reconsider rejecting the Party of Lincoln and return to the fold.

    And if they don’t vote? When Obama wasn’t on the ballot even a few weeks after the 2008 election in a special election or two (sorry for not looking it up), Black voters showed up at the lower historical rates. What was their participation rate in 2010?

    What’s the over-under on Black participation in 2012 these days?

  220. 220
  221. 221
    22state says:

    baloney.

    baloney.

    Who’s on tap to be the challenger? OH, no one. DUH!

    All the “professional” left wants is the President they voted for – a guy they knew was a centerist, who supported the big business agenda, but who they thought (based on the reality of his Illinois State legislature achievements) was a small “d” democrat who would do good government stuff like rule of law, shutting down fraud in government contracts, ending torture…… you know the basics.

    So now the “professional” left is asked to suck on this – a tax package that enshrines bonuses for the kleptocracy and sets up another serious round of hostage taking 2 years from now?

    One word.

    NO.

  222. 222
    Comrade Mary says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Third, Clinton couldn’t be primaried after he was impeached—he couldn’t run for another term because he was impeached in his second term.

    No, he couldn’t run for another term because no president can serve for more than two terms.

    But after the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 and Clinton moved on to school uniforms and welfare reform, was there an outcry to primary Clinton in 1996?

  223. 223
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    As Corner Stone is pointing out in his deadpan way, the left did give Clinton a hard time, for basically 8 years, especially on trade and financial-sector issues.

    And, lo and behold, President Clinton’s record now includes a free trade deal that crippled American manufacturing and the signing of a financial sector deregulation bill that gave birth to the Almost Depression of 2008. Just sayin’…

  224. 224
  225. 225
    WyldPirate says:

    @General Stuck:

    I pay no attention to what you say widlythang. none whatsoever, nor you hackneyed tired insults. Debating you is like brainstorming wizards at the local pool hall. Measuring dicks, and judging farts.

    right, stuck.. Which why you paid no attention with post after post in another thread just this am making a fool out of yourself trying to deny what you had clearly said.

    The sky is green and the grass is blue and Up is down in your world isn’t it?

  226. 226
    agrippa says:

    Now what?

    I presume that people are not going to ‘kiss and make up’.

    It is illogical to think that anyone will do that easily or soon.

    It is logical to point at those people across the aisle and ask:

    “What do you intend to do with them? How do you propose to beat them in 2012?”

    I point out that this ‘argument’ does not answer those questions.

  227. 227
    GN says:

    @Cat: Seems to me that the claim is that there is no basis for thinking that loudmouths “progressives” in the national and new media could possibly have any sort of race-based aversion to POTUS thus us nigras must simply be delusional or trying to keep POTUS from legitimate critique. Show me anyone who has ever claimed that all criticism and all progressives are racist. The point is that POTUS is subject to some very over the top disdain, and that point stands.

  228. 228
    ricky says:

    Just a little reminder to the 20% of the electorate who call themselves liberals, which must include a substantial number of people of color:

    When a sitting Democratic President has been challenged
    by a more progressive candidate for the nomination, not only has a Republican won the next general election, but the progressive challenger has never even won the nomination. Some base.

  229. 229
    west coast says:

    @Evilbeard:

    You make it sound unreasonable to be dissatisfied with the President just laying down for the Republicans without a fight.

    I think this perfectly sums up my frustration with these debates. Winning a fight is about ego-gratification, governing is about achieving goals. We had 8 long years of a president who won nearly every political fight, and whose governance landed America in a ditch. Do you really want the lefty version of that?

  230. 230
    PS says:

    Two quick comments: 1. Left opposition to Clinton was largely from outside the Party — remember Seattle? I suspect that some of the frustration is coming from people trying to enter the system, and discovering some of the long-standing problems with it.

    2. Obama, for better or worse, is trying to change the way politics is done; out-yelling the right wing, while viscerally satisfying at times, is absolutely in contradiction to his most basic goals. You may of course disagree with his goals, but it does change the nature of the disagreement, does it not?

  231. 231
    General Stuck says:

    @Comrade Mary:

    It’s kind of sad that a Canuck has to educate an American on basic U.S. Constitutional law.

  232. 232
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @Comrade Mary:

    But after the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 and Clinton moved on to school uniforms and welfare reform, was there an outcry to primary Clinton in 1996?

    Since “outcry” seems now to be defined as “some diarists at GOS and a handful of left-leaning bloggers,” then I imagine that, if the internet had been in 1996 anything like it is today, there would indeed have been an “outcry” to primary President Clinton.

  233. 233
    Ross Hershberger says:

    What if Obama is primaried by another person of color? Who do we blame then?

    Sorta wondered about that with the 2008 Clinton/Obama primary matchups. Which way would the aggregate Dem female African American vote break? Too abstract to be worth looking up, but it was an interesting question for a minute.

  234. 234
    valdivia says:

    @cat48:
    great great roundup of how we got to this tax deal. this should be widely circulated cause most people still are under the delusion that Congress had nothing to do with it.

    @LTMidnight:
    fantastic rant. hats off to you.

  235. 235
    General Stuck says:

    @WyldPirate:

    I have Chocolate pie, just for you.

  236. 236
    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people) says:

    @cat48: I wish more people would acknowledge this reality as they criticize Obama. Then it would seem fair and obvious that there is lots of criticism to go around: Obama should get maybe 25%, Dems in Congress 25%, and Republicans 50%. But the perception is that Obama gets 75% of the criticism, Dems in congress 25% and most progressives don’t even bother with the Republicans. It’s like they don’t exist and aren’t the biggest obstruction to the kind of progress the left wants. Fascinating.

    I look at people demonstrating in the UK, Greece, etc., and find it amazing that people here assume that a bunch of politicians (that they accuse of being bought and paid for by corporate interests) will do all the fighting for them as they sit back on their fat asses typing away with smug satisfaction and self-righteousness.

    I have to take a break from reading Balloon Juice for a little while. It’s not helping my blood pressure.

  237. 237
    Martin says:

    @Cat:

    If this is the case he will veto any bill that has a reduced SS payroll tax included in it. This is the foot in the door that will allow for the reducing of benefits and/or raising the age of receiving benefits.
    Until something changes in US politics no tax cut will ever expire or be rescinded.
    Unless you don’t think SS makes a stronger America.

    I don’t know why you think the GOP would do these things. Sure, they talk about doing it, but they lie. We know they lie. Look at their voter base. The average age of Fox News watchers is 65. They campaigned by attacking Dems for being willing to touch SS and Medicare. You really think the GOP is going to reduce Social Security benefits? They’d have no voters left.

    Ironically, it was the left that did the grand freak-out over the debt commission plan to massively increase benefits for low-income retirees in Social Security to a point that they would be better off with early retirement than they are now waiting for full benefits. It was a clever and graceful way to handle the problem of blue-collar workers forced to face earlier retirement, but did anyone on the left notice? Nope. Pushing high-income earners back to collect comparable benefits is what they flipped out over. Rather than react to what would help the very people they professed to care about, they reacted to the pain added to privileged white-collar progressives.

    Actually, in truth, the left didn’t know what the fuck was in the plan, and freaked out over the optics of raising the age of full benefits without bothering to take any time to see what it *really* meant. So, again, they could afford to not care about the outcomes, just the appearances.

  238. 238
    nancydarling says:

    I would also like to add to my post #187, that you don’t hear a lot of minorities talk about packing up their toys and moving to NZ or Canada or somewhere. This country has never lived up to its ideals, but it is still worth fighting for. It’s a long game. Maybe we should welcome their leaving as they probably aren’t going to be much help anyway.

  239. 239
    ricky says:

    @homerhk:

    Not only do you lack balls, but the sanctimony with which to fill them.

  240. 240
    Elie says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    There is a vitriol in the attacks on Obama from the left, that were never there in this intensity then.

    The environment now is also different having been inflammed by the extreme language and racial epithets hurled by the right wing against Obama. Unfortunately, much of the same intensity has been mimicked and not infrequently repeated by the left. No — the left does not call him muslim, socialist but they have called him weak using every synonym for weak and indecisive that they can. Unfortunately, weak starts to overlap black and other related ways to disparage a leader and that is why many of us have our backs up,

    Listen, I am willing to discuss and listen to criticism of Obama that is not accompanied by the contempt and exagerration that I keep reading over and over. It seems sometimes that the critics on the left are not just interested in changing policy but in damaging him.

    I am also perplexed by so many that should know better. That should know that policy is complex and difficult and that as Martin points out, long term gains are weighted against short term losses…that these so called bright folks can’t figure that out…

  241. 241
    Elie says:

    There is a vitriol in the attacks on Obama from the left, that were never there in this intensity then.

    The environment now is also different having been inflammed by the extreme language and racial epithets hurled by the right wing against Obama. Unfortunately, much of the same intensity has been mimicked and not infrequently repeated by the left. No—the left does not call him muslim, socialist but they have called him weak using every synonym for weak and indecisive that they can. Unfortunately, weak starts to overlap black and other related ways to disparage a leader and that is why many of us have our backs up,

    Listen, I am willing to discuss and listen to criticism of Obama that is not accompanied by the contempt and exagerration that I keep reading over and over. It seems sometimes that the critics on the left are not just interested in changing policy but in damaging him.

    I am also perplexed by so many that should know better. That should know that policy is complex and difficult and that as Martin points out, long term gains are weighted against short term losses…that these so called bright folks can’t figure that out…

  242. 242
    Elie says:

    Does anyone know the rules for having your comments under moderation? I just posted a pretty inocuous comment without hate or bad words and its under moderation. Where do I go to read about why this happens?

  243. 243
    Jules says:

    I’m waiting for the first progressive who says “see this is what we get for giving a black guy a chance”…I bet it will be a firebagger.

  244. 244
    WyldPirate says:

    @Comrade Mary:

    But after the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 and Clinton moved on to school uniforms and welfare reform, was there an outcry to primary Clinton in 1996?

    I have been highly pissed about Obama’s performance and I’m probably one of the louder critics here, but I don’t support a primary challenge at all.

    And you know, Comrade Mary, I don’t remember about Clinton, but Google is your friend. I looked and evidently there was a lot of talk:

    Obama Primary Challenge Talk Comically Innocent Compared To What Clinton Faced

    “Privately, a number of Democrats advance this dream,” the Pittsburgh Advertise-Gazette wrote on Christmas Day 1994. “Clinton withdraws after being terribly wounded in the early primaries, the party unites behind Vice President Al Gore, and Democrats retain the White House in 1996.”

    A Times Mirror Center For the Human beings & The Press poll (immediately know as the Pew Center) taken in early December found that “two-thirds of Democrats desire someone in their party to challenge President Clinton for renomination,” sparking, naturally, a bit of press coverage.

    A Times Mirror Center For the Human beings & The Press poll (immediately know as the Pew Center) taken in early December found that “two-thirds of Democrats desire someone in their party to challenge President Clinton for renomination,” sparking, naturally, a bit of press coverage.

    There are more examples in the linked article.

    I think that this should put the canard on this board to rest that people were not pissed at Clinton. And it was much harder to hear about discontent then as well.

  245. 245
    west coast says:

    @PS:

    Remember when “progressives” rallied to Ralph Nader’s banner in 2000?

  246. 246
    Corner Stone says:

    @ricky: Cogito ergo ad hoc qui sum much?

  247. 247
    eemom says:

    @PS:

    Obama, for better or worse, is trying to change the way politics is done;

    oh no he’s not. As I’ve said many times, I support Obama: but to me, the most fundamental wrong in the mess of wrong that is this tax cut deal is that does exactly the OPPOSITE of change.

    At a procedural level, it rewards and therefore further entrenches the politics of obstruction and sausage-making.

    On a substantive level, it entrenches the stranglehold of the plutocracy on government.

    What’s worse, there was a real opportunity for change there. Had he stuck to his guns, said a long-overdue fuck you to the repubs and their billionaire tax cut sacred cow, and taken his case to the public — said fuck you to the emmessemm too, by the way — and taken his case to the public loud and clear……”UI benefits are expiring because of tax cuts for the rich, it is just that simple” — THEN, he would have been trying for change.

  248. 248
    srv says:

    @Comrade Mary:

    But after the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 and Clinton moved on to school uniforms and welfare reform, was there an outcry to primary Clinton in 1996?

    Uh, perhaps they went to a third party, like the Green Party and their candidate in 1996?

    I understand why nobody remembers the 60’s, but did everybody just read the NYT’s and WP in the 90’s for their news?

  249. 249
    Martin says:

    @Elie: ‘SociaIist’ will land you in moderation for containing ‘ciaIis’. Can’t mention similar drugs either.

  250. 250
    lol chikinburd says:

    If (1) you’re a white person (or otherwise privileged, but we’ll keep it simple for this example), and (2) someone calls you on something you’ve said or are doing that could hurt people of color as a class, and (3) your first and last concern in response to this is of how you end up coming off, then you’ve pretty much already qualified as a self-centered asshole and a shitty coalition partner, independent of whether you’re “racist” or not.

    Christ. The bingo card filled out about fifty comments into this thread.

  251. 251

    @LTMidnight:

    “Not because we’re fixated on the fact that he’s African American, but you guys have yet to give a reason for not supporting him that can’t be summarized as “He didn’t do what I wanted him to do in the way and time I wanted him to do it”, and you accuse us of calling you racists.”

    You’re being accused of calling people racist when you act like the most common complaint in all of politics is a vile slander if directed at Obama.

    You’re being accused of calling people racist when rather than acknowledging that some people have legitimate complaints against Obama, you find a way to summarize their concerns in a way that discounts them as entirely illegitimate and based in personal hatred of Obama.

    You’re being accused of calling people racists because you use the strawmen noted in the previous points to imply that well, since there aren’t any legitimate reasons for white progressives to be upset at Obama THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THEY ARENT TELLING US.

    In short you’re being accused of calling people racists when you call people racists in order to intimidate them outt’ve their political opinions.

    Seriously man, look back over your post. Your points:

    a) White progressive people are treating Obama horribly and attacking him personally, etc.

    b) All of their complaints are whiny bullshit. Every single one. There is not a single legitimate criticism of Obama that can be made by white progressives, because the only reason they’re upset with Obama is that he isn’t absolutely perfect in every way and this makes them despise him as a person

    c) Gee, white people are treating Obama like shit even though there isn’t a single legitimate reason to be upset with him. I WONDER WHY THAT MIGHT BE HMMMM

    d) Hey whoa, slow down. Where do you white people get off saying I called you racists?

    Just keep splitting that hair between “called” and “heavily implied,” so you can keep telling yourself you didn’t call anyone racist. Give me a break dude.

    “All people like me have done is give the white liberal blogosphere a friendly reminder that African-Americans still exist in this country and that we as a whole still support President Obama”

    Really? Who were you reminding? I don’t remember anyone in the liberal whiteosphere claiming anything that stands in contradiction of the point you just raised; maybe you could link some? What I remember is some lefties saying they might primary Obama and some black Dems responding that if that happens it would be their fault for driving the black voters outt’ve the party forever. That sounds a lot more like an ultimatum than a friendly reminder to me.

    Tell you what: why don’t you provide an example of a critique of Obama that black Dems could accept without having it forcibly drive them from the party against their will. Suppose someone honestly and truly does think Obama’s entire presidency has been shit — they aren’t entitled to their opinion? They are, but they should shut the fuck up and never express it? A third option? Help me out here.

  252. 252
    LTMidnight says:

    @Tim:

    Which part of

    Not because we’re fixated on the fact that he’s African American, but you guys have yet to give a reason for not supporting him that can’t be summarized as “He didn’t do what I wanted him to do in the way and time I wanted him to do it”

    do you not get?

  253. 253
    Uriel says:

    @Tim:

    Man…this post and this editorial are even more reverse-racist

    YES! Finally someone brave enough to proudly take that word back for the left! Pretty soon, we’ll be able to turn all that southern strategy stuff around, and the south will be ours once again! Then we won’t even need those upity blacks anymore.

    Permanent majority in the key of D major! Where’s your Lee Atwater now, bitches?

  254. 254
    ricky says:

    I believe this commentary thread demonstrates the superiority of the homogeneous model selected by that opposition party to the Democrats. None of their people have to worry about anything other than the people who think some of them dress funny.

  255. 255
    WyldPirate says:

    @General Stuck:

    Heat, kitchen, door…

  256. 256
    licensed to kill time says:

    @Elie:

    Look in the Lexicon under M for moderation for a fuller explanation.

  257. 257
    General Stuck says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Okay, I could make some blackberry pie, if you insist.

  258. 258
    Martin says:

    @eemom:

    As I’ve said many times, I support Obama: but to me, the most fundamental wrong in the mess of wrong that is this tax cut deal is that does exactly the OPPOSITE of change.

    Time is the wildcard on this one. The Dems in Congress pushed it back in order to clear other legislation without this becoming the ‘we’ll filibuster everything until we win’ issue that it’s since become. That’s left no time to hash out a real solution. Even when Congress is negotiating in good faith on something that involves trillions of dollars, they need time to work out whether it’s going to work as expected. Real tax and revenue reform usually takes at least a year – not 2 weeks. When you only have 2 weeks, you have to make decisions within known frameworks.

    That’s why Obama is leaning toward the Debt Commission tax recommendations – that backs up the clock on the process by several months and is probably the only way that a meaningful change will get through before it’s completely swept up in 2012 electoral politics (and as a result, killed dead).

  259. 259
    LTMidnight says:

    @kwAwk:

    So the arguments that Obama is being treated unfairly because he is black falls flat on its face with little or no help from anybody else

    Whether it really is the case or not is not the point. The point is that’s how it will be perceived.

    As the saying goes, “Perception is reality”

  260. 260
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Comrade Mary: Yes there was. Actually it was more on the lines of forming a new labor party and also the Greens. It’s not like 2000 was the first time Ralph Nader ran for President.

    Outside the always present “third party” threat, there was talk of primarying. The difference is that the LEFT within the Democratic party had for the most part dissolved over a number of issues. This current left actually is much more capable of organizing a primary challenge rather than a third party challenge as they have been putting up their own candidates in statewide congressional races for a few cycles now. But just like I doubt that everybody’s favorite independent, Bloomberg, is going to play the Perot of 2008, I don’t think any of the candidates that is going to be bandied about by the left is actually going to run against Obama.

    The issue isn’t the primary challenges per se. Its the way the discussion is going. If progressives want to take over the Democratic party, they have to convince African American voters and Hispanic voters, rather than just assuming that those voters will just go along for the ride, that they are being fair, and will deliver what those voters want. If progressives meet those objections with “I don’t care what you think”, then what’s the point of even discussing a primary challenge?

  261. 261
    General Stuck says:

    @LTMidnight:

    As the saying goes, “Perception is reality”

    Yes, as it goes in politics. But when the wingers take control of the House this time, I expect we are going to need a new saying.

  262. 262
    Jules says:

    @lol chikinburd:

    If (1) you’re a white person (or otherwise privileged, but we’ll keep it simple for this example), and (2) someone calls you on something you’ve said or are doing that could hurt people of color as a class, and (3) your first and last concern in response to this is of how you end up coming off, then you’ve pretty much already qualified as a self-centered asshole and a shitty coalition partner, independent of whether you’re “racist” or not.

    Bingo.
    I also might suggest the South Park episode With Apologies to Jesse Jackson as further study material.

  263. 263
    LTMidnight says:

    I see the “There’s no such creature as a Racist Liberal” brigade had decided to join in this debate.

    Maybe one of them can explain how, if Obama is primaried, are they gonna get African Americans to see things their way.

  264. 264
    jwb says:

    @Elie: FYWP. Word Press giveth and Word Press taketh away. There are forbidden words (hence, the characteristic spelling of soshulist), more than three links will get you thrown into moderation, or some change to your poster information will get you thrown into moderation. Sometimes, however, Word Press just deems that life is going to well for you and so you need to suffer.

  265. 265
    El Cid says:

    @Tim: I didn’t and never would suggest that African Americans support Obama simply because he is black.

    If you’ll notice, when I mentioned that concerns of ‘the African American community’ (to the extent of using it as an aggregate term when it comprises individuals only) I repeated “especially” when it’s an African American President.

    I didn’t suggest that black people support Obama because he’s black, and it was bizarre or dishonest of you to suggest that or conclude so.

    What I argued was that — in general — white liberals or progressives (or of any political leaning) morally must take into account how what they say or do will be perceived among African Americans.

    It doesn’t mean that you only do or back those things according to, say, polls of African Americans, though just like with every community or gender or ethnic or religious grouping, you often do have to take into account really strong or really weak opinions there.

    For example, it does matter that around 90% of African Americans constantly vote with Democrats. On the other hand, turnout can vary a lot.

    Is it sane to listen to expressed opinion or make sensible conclusions or pay attention to opinion polls regarding the fact that African Americans do note very significantly the fact that Obama is the first black President?

    I recall that this seemed to be a fact pretty universally acknowledged upon Obama’s victory and at the inauguration. I guess that sort of outlook now shouldn’t be expressed less someone not paying attention can conclude that this means that all blacks vote for Obama because he’s black.

    Or, don’t do any of it. If you don’t think it matters worth a damn, do and say whatever the hell you want and if the way you do or say things pisses off some ethnic / religious / local community or gender, well, fuck ’em.

    Right?

  266. 266
    jwb says:

    @Martin: If “soshulist” lands you into moderation, then how did your comment get through? Do you have the super-secret WP moderation bypass code?

  267. 267
    Can't Be Bothered says:

    This thread is a shit show fail parade. Cole puts up a post with reasoned assertions for toning down the rhetoric and is met by the same gaggle of assholes screaming about Obama. The commentariat here has gone precipitously downhill and I can’t put my finger on when it happened. EVERY post becomes the same group whining about how much Obama sucks and doesn’t fight enough. It’s like a dickhead colony sent out a scout to figure out a place where they could argue with people and this was the place they found. It used to be snarky fun. Pointing and laughing at glibertarians and the like. Now, it’s just depressing and repetitive. You people are addicted self righteous arguing, plain and simple. Find a better hobby or a better place to do it. I’m begging you.

  268. 268
    Suffern ACE says:

    @LTMidnight: Taxes? Do you think revolting over taxes is an issue that resonates?

  269. 269
    Douglas says:

    @Mrs. Polly:

    The unemployment figure for blacks was 16% last month.

    13.2% for Latinos. 8.9% for whites. That is some pretty significant pain being felt in minority communities, but nobody is saying that whites don’t know what unemployment is like.

    Really? Let me requote

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents.

    Unlike white progressives.
    Yeah, the author is very clearly saying that whites don’t know what unemployment is.

    @John Cole:
    I’m not saying the author is saying I’m racist – I’m saying the author is racist.

    Which makes me pretty fucking sad, cause I’m usually in the group of people laughing my ass off and rolling my eyes at people claiming reverse racism, sexism and whatnot. But this is just fucking retarded.

  270. 270
    General Stuck says:

    @Can’t Be Bothered:

    Find a better hobby or a better place to do it. I’m begging you.

    I fear they can’t be bothered

  271. 271
    LTMidnight says:

    @Tim:

    Oh please. Of COURSE you are fixated on the fact that Obama is black (only half, remember). That is what matters to you more than anything else about him; his performance, his promises, his integrity, his reliability, his humanity.

    All else pales against the color of his skin.

    TRANSLATION: “Only black people can be racist. Us white liberals are totally incapable of it. Even while I’m basically saying that Blacks care more about skin color than morals”

    That’s some argument you got there, kid.

  272. 272
    ricky says:

    @Corner Stone:

    No. I didn’t think about it at all. When the qui sum bitch
    made the first move I said “I have had all the mumbo jumbi
    I can take and what’s more the wafers won’t bleed any
    they taste funny.”

  273. 273
    eemom says:

    @Can’t Be Bothered:

    1) you evidently haven’t read the thread, because you’re full of shit about what’s in it.

    2) there are more of us than you. YOU find a better place, and don’t let the door hit your blase ass on the way out.

  274. 274
    El Cid says:

    @Can’t Be Bothered: I haven’t counted — are the number of posters (not # of posts) dominated by those of one basic perspective or another?

    To say “you people” are all freaking out about John’s post, is that because most people are doing so or because some people are doing so?

    Just asking.

  275. 275
    El Tiburon says:

    @Hal:

    And what Black man was that? I recall Hillary actually being more popular amongst black voters than Obama in the beginning and only picking up strong support once he started winning.

    Speaking of straw men…

    This doesn’t negate my point. I have a Hispanic-friend ( I know, how convenient) who is an atty. I would say he was more apolitical than anything. He was all for Alberto Gonzalez becoming AG, regardless of his failings. My friend wanted to see a Hispanic rise to that level. How do I know this? He told me. This doesn’t mean all Hispanics felt the same way. I’m just saying I understand the argument, hence the Larry Bird reference.

  276. 276
    licensed to kill time says:

    @jwb:

    @Martin: If “soshulist” lands you into moderation, then how did your comment get through? Do you have the super-secret WP moderation bypass code?

    Super-secret WP moderation bypass code for sociaIist :

    Use a capital i for the L when you type sociaIist, Comrade. Sneaky, huh?

  277. 277
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Douglas:

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all.

    Make more sense for you? He’s not calling out working class whites. He’s calling out a different set of people entirely.

  278. 278
    Hal says:

    I might have my timelines mixed up, but wasn’t the whole Paula Jones thing going on in 1994? Part of Clinton’s lack of popularity wasn’t just his perceived reversal on his promises, it was his personal behavior.

    Funny thing is, I think Clinton was actually saved by conservative over reach. The Lawsuit, the Whitewater investigation, and later the impeachment made more people feel sorry for Clinton than if he had remained your garden variety, cheating sleezeball.

    But here’s the sticking point with me. Clinton left office massively popular amongst Dems in spite of all his bullshit. Most gays loved him and threw Hillary their support in turn even though he signed DADT and not only signed DOMA, but encouraged support of the law. He tried to appeal to white voters by purposely criticizing Sistah Soulja’s “racism” at an event with Jesse Jackson in attendance.

    He made a point of moving to the center and was more concerned with being re-elected than sticking to his word, and it certainly didn’t harm him much in the end.

  279. 279
    ricky says:

    @LTMidnight:

    You are so wrong. What he is saying is that the white missionary liberal imperialist is superior because he sees all those things before letting paltry concerns like race get in the way.

  280. 280
    El Tiburon says:

    @Martin:

    My thesis is that the current President is playing a long game toward a better America rather than a short game toward a stronger Democratic party.

    While you may be right, I think you are wrong. I believe the complete opposite. I believe Obama is now playing the “let’s do what it takes to get me re-elected” game, which, in and of itself I don’t have a problem with. But I feel his policies are making this a weaker nation.

    This is why I voice such strong opposition to many of his policies. And if he cannot begin to back up so many of his campaign promises, then I will continue to voice criticisms.

    Now, to use an Obamaism: all options are on the table. And if takes the threat of a primary to get him to listen, then so be it. If it takes the threat of portions of his base to stay home in 2012, then so be it. I am willing to negotiate my money and my vote: you start at least pretending to fulfill some of your campaign promises, like ending these stupid fucking wars you fucking moron, or you ain’t getting my vote. This is My democracy.

  281. 281
    LTMidnight says:

    @GN: Exactly. I guess the plan if they do primary Obama and African American rail in opposition is just to say “You people are so sensitive”, or “You people are so delusional”

    Cause we absolutely love it when we’re dismissed like children. /sarcasm

  282. 282
    Douglas says:

    @Suffern ACE: Make more sense for you? He’s not calling out working class whites. He’s calling out a different set of people entirely.

    No.
    If he said “white progressives writing for a newspaper, or actually. anyone writing for a newspaper, period, I wouldn’t have an issue with it… but as it is, it’s just retarded racism.
    Spoiler: Tons of people who consider themselves political progressive (and are progressive, using any definition I’m familiar with) and happen to be white are unemployed – same with any other group (exact number may vary – non-whites, especially blacks and latinos are more represented than whites, obviously).

  283. 283
    valdivia says:

    SociaIist.

    just trying it out for fun!

    ETA: it works! thanks BJ people for this new trick.

  284. 284
    Can't Be Bothered says:

    @El Cid:

    Yes. Some people post A LOT. And I expected a chorus of “you GTFO!” Typical response. But the comments section here has devolved more and more into people screaming past each other and having LITERALLY the same useless “conversation” multiple times per day. The only conclusion I can come to is that some people really, really, really like feeling self righteous and arguing.

  285. 285
    El Tiburon says:

    @Merkin:

    no, but some Jews did think the liberal attacks on Lieberman were a sign of antisemitism on the left.

    Al Gore is fat. Barack Obama is black. Joe Lieberman is a Jew. Hillary Clinton is a woman. Joe Biden has hair plugs.

    No wonder the Democratic party is fucked: Not one Protestant, white, slender, dude with good hair is available to run for Pres.

  286. 286
    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people) says:

    @El Tiburon:

    This is My democracy.

    Wow. Just wow. It’s mine too. And everyone else on this blog’s democracy. And the reality is, you have to work with others you disagree with to get what you want. Feel free to become a politician yourself, get people to see things your way and ram all your policies through, running roughshod over congress, and balckmailing them into writing legislation exactly the way you want it. There’s no reason for you not to create the left-leaning equivalent of the Tea Party, complete with purity tests and all. Hopefully you’ll have candidates with greater appeal to independents than the O’Donnell’s, Angles, Kucinichs and Graysons of the world. Try it, it’ll probably feel much better than railing impotently against Obama on a blog.

  287. 287

    @General Stuck: Oh really? That’s all you’re saying huh? So nobody said that if Obama is primaried the black folks will leave the Democratic party and it’d be the liberals’ fault?

    Sure thing, ya fuckin’ liar.

    @Sixers: That is a fine recitation of official whitehouse spin there sir. Explicit, direct parroting of the “looking back not forward / not going to relegislate the past” stuff and all. I’m impressed.

  288. 288
    Suffern ACE says:

    @johnny walker: Maybe I’m wrong here, but are there a lot of conservative democrats out there calling for a primary?

  289. 289

    @Nick: “No one BELIEVES Obama is being treated unfairly because he’s black.”

    Is this opposite day or are you simply calling Reed and several of the posters in this thread liars? That people do believe Obama is being treated differently because he’s black has not only been flatly stated numerous times but is the main point of the entire thread — that and how black Dems might respond to an Obama primary challenge, which is being positioned as the ultimate example of him being treated unfairly.

    Now time to split hairs over the difference between “treated unfairly,” “treated differently,” “held to a different standard,” etc. I suppose.

  290. 290
    Cat says:

    @Martin:

    I don’t know why you think the GOP would do these things. Sure, they talk about doing it, but they lie. We know they lie. Look at their voter base. The average age of Fox News watchers is 65. They campaigned by attacking Dems for being willing to touch SS and Medicare. You really think the GOP is going to reduce Social Security benefits? They’d have no voters left.

    I know people who voted for Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2000 who consistently tell me we can’t afford SS benefits to continue at their current rate and that SS will be bankrupt in 20 years. I’m not sure my arguments effect their opinions. :(

    I’m sure they’ll vote for someone Dem or Republican who promises to reduce SS benefits if it means they don’t have to pay an extra 1% in SS benefits since they could just put it in their 401k and get more return on it then the Gov’t gives on SS.

    And then there is the old ‘grandfather’ trick which can be used to keep your old voters happy.

    I think your analysis is flat out wrong.

  291. 291
    Martin says:

    @jwb: Yes. My sociaIist kung-fu is better.

  292. 292

    @Tim:

    “It should be remembered that Obama is also half white and his genetic blackness is not descended from slaves. Ergo, as a white American I have just as much in common with him racially as any black American.”

    Sorry dude I’m with a lot of what I see from you in this thread but this is garbage. Look into the concept of hypodescent.

  293. 293
    Cat says:

    @WyldPirate:

    I think that this should put the canard on this board to rest that people were not pissed at Clinton. And it was much harder to hear about discontent then as well.

    It does not fit the narrative and will be ignored.

  294. 294
    WyldPirate says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Make more sense for you? He’s not calling out working class whites. He’s calling out a different set of people entirely.

    Unless you are being sarcastic–and even if you were–it’s still fucked up.

    White progressives are not one monolithic block of well-to-do people who always “get what they want” anymore than blacks or Latinos are.

    The arguments the author of the column used were mostly a bunch of vacuous horseshit.

  295. 295
    eemom says:

    @El Cid:

    I kind of thought some of us here were engaging in a good-faith discussion of the issues raised by the post.

    But Mr. Cole has just cast his lot with a random asshole who reads a few random comments and says “fuck it, they’re all the same.”

    Nice to be appreciated.

  296. 296
    LTMidnight says:

    @johnny walker

    You’re being accused of calling people racist when you act like the most common complaint in all of politics is a vile slander if directed at Obama.

    So calling the president “Stupid” like Cenk Uygur did or questioning his masculinity like Michael Moore did, or comparing an Obama supporter to a Nazi propagandist like Glenn Greenwald did “common complaints”?

    You’re being accused of calling people racist when rather than acknowledging that some people have legitimate complaints against Obama, you find a way to summarize their concerns in a way that discounts them as entirely illegitimate and based in personal hatred of Obama.

    Which part of “It’s not the ‘calling President Obama on his shit’ that’s the problem. It’s the ‘painting his entire presidency as hit’ that’s the problem” do you not understand?

    You’re being accused of calling people racists because you use the strawmen noted in the previous points to imply that well, since there aren’t any legitimate reasons for white progressives to be upset at Obama THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THEY ARENT TELLING US.

    Except I’ve never said that.

    In short you’re being accused of calling people racists when you call people racists in order to intimidate them outt’ve their political opinions.

    So in your mind, reminding you that African Americans still overwhelmingly support this president, is intimidation? Somebody needs to hope they get some thicker skin for Christmas.

    Tell you what: why don’t you provide an example of a critique of Obama that black Dems could accept without having it forcibly drive them from the party against their will.

    How about fair, legitimate criticisms that don’t involve questioning his intellect, his masculinity, or engaging in “Manchurian Candidate” conspiracy theories.

    Suppose someone honestly and truly does think Obama’s entire presidency has been shit—they aren’t entitled to their opinion? They are, but they should shut the fuck up and never express it? A third option? Help me out here.

    You can “think” it all you want, but when you start presenting it as fact, that’s when people have to call ‘bullshit’.

  297. 297
    Cat says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Make more sense for you? He’s not calling out working class whites. He’s calling out a different set of people entirely.

    Because working class whites can’t be progressives???

  298. 298
    bob says:

    I may have to install Cleek’s pie filter to read my own damned blog.

    Yep. And they’ve infested some other really good blogs, as well.

  299. 299

    I am a middle aged white guy and will support this President, period. He is one of the few in my lifetime that has ever made sense to me. He also makes speeches that make me listen and learn. That gets me by.
    All the rest I have been reading/ hearing, not so much. Okay that’s all for now. Back to my sci-fi movies on a rainy day. Cheers.

  300. 300
    Buck says:

    @Martin:

    So that’s why… I wondered about that.

    Akismet is a much better solution for the spam problem.

  301. 301
    John Cole says:

    @eemom: What are you talking about? I’ve read every comment and haven’t found anything you’ve said over the line.

  302. 302
    bob says:

    @Richard Fox: Same demographic. Fully agree. For me, it’s a patent application on a rainy afternoon, so I’m envious :)

  303. 303
    Sly says:

    The liberal sites that fell to the forces of self-righteous pity-partiers, as opposed to the ones that started out that way, were the ones who offer commentators the option of recommending posts so they make it to the top of the front page, and burying posts they don’t like.

    Democratic Underground was the first to go, starting in the healthcare debate when a few people could make asinine concern-troll posts like “Will Obama send me to jail for not buying insurance?” and shit like that, getting friends to push them up the front page so that, eventually, it was all you ever saw. Actual analysis of the law, and its positive impacts on the uninsured and insured alike, was buried. If you actually pushed back, even in the mildest of terms, you were accused of being an insurance company shill.

    Consequently, if anyone is ever in the mood to research how echo chambers are actively constructed on-line, DU during the Summer of 2009 is a treasure trove. Now the site is practically unreadable. To be fair, it isn’t NoQuarter or HillBuzz crazy, but it may get there there eventually.

    The same pattern has essentially emerged at GOS. So comparing it to the spread of an insect colony is rather appropriate. Misery loves company.

  304. 304
    srv says:

    I may have to install Cleek’s pie filter to read my own damned blog.

    No one could have predicted.

  305. 305
    4jkb4ia says:

    @El Tiburon:
    “Holy Joe” says everything about how Joe Lieberman’s aggressive religiosity does rub some people the wrong way. The Inner Wingnut contrasts this with the very secular Russ Feingold and says that letting everyone clearly know that you are Jewish is disapproved by the left. Of course, the happy netroots support for Dennis Shulman counteracts this.

  306. 306

    @west coast:

    “We had 8 long years of a president who won nearly every political fight, and whose governance landed America in a ditch. Do you really want the lefty version of that?”

    So because 8 years of Republicans getting what they wanted was bad for America the current President must be sure to give the Republicans some of what they want to avoid being bad for America.

    Gotcha.

  307. 307
    dogwood says:

    I had hopes for the Democrats in 2008, but the last two years have pretty much shown that the party can’t hold it together and probably never will. It’s not in their DNA. The Republicans spent 40 years honing their message, thereby changing the narrative of politics in this country. They built a base of big business, evangelicals and national security hawks who, while seeming disparate, actually share a couple of fundamental characteristics. These are people who have a heightened respect for authority and value intense loyalty. This gives Republicans a built in advantage that Democrats will never have. The power of Republican message control can be seen on liberal blogs now. Liberals speak of the President in the exact same language used so effectively by the right wing. And you can’t blame the MSM for this. The next two years we’ll see Dems on TV trashing the Pres. Why wouldn’t they get booked; it makes for good TV. If Republicans would have been willing to go on TV and criticize Pres. Bush, they would have received a forum as well. Republicans are relentlessly patient and disciplined; politically, those are great qualities. Democrats are independent contractors, thus there is no advantage in hanging together. Obama never had the votes to pass a truly progressive agenda; independent contractors take care of themselves not the party as a whole. The next Republican pres. will have large majorities in both Houses who will have his or her back at all costs. The results will be ugly. The next Dem. pres. will face the same fate as Pres. Obama. He or she will struggle to move the ball down the field, and when results aren’t swift or pure enough, the party will fracture and the opposition will win.

    I’m a liberal Democrat, so none of this surprises me. But I understand John’s frustration with this development. He’s a recent convert from a party that understands we “hang together, or surely we will hang separately.” Get used to it John; it will never change. Democrats are in their natural element now; hating the president is an article of faith among the true believers. It’s every man for himself, so you ain’t seen nothing yet.

  308. 308
    thejoz says:

    The question I’d like to see answered is who in their right mind actually thinks that the entire “Black Vote” is going to either stop voting altogether or go and vote Republicans if/when/because Barack Obama gets voted out of office by someone who is not another Black man (or woman).

    It just isn’t going to happen.

    The idea of the Democrats “losing” “the black vote” “forever” is preposterous, because the alternatives are absolutely insane and self-destructive.

  309. 309
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Cat: LOL. Because working class progressive whites aren’t the ones organizing a primary! (Actually no one is at this point, thank God!) We’re too damn busy trying to find jobs and whatnot, so someone will need to organize us and make us believe that such efforts are worth while. Since it is his opinion (probably correct), that those who would be organizing this on the left would be from the high-hair segment of the progressives, he’s lobbing his derision at them…The people who organize us.

    I don’t really take this as a existential affront to my ability to criticize Obama while remaining white. I just will do so a bit more humanely.

    Who knows? Maybe he read those crappy pieces from Douglas Schoen or Mark Penn or whoever, notices that they claim to be “liberal”, noticed that they call for ending Obama’s Presidency and is giving them a big “Fuck you.”

    I never think that anything that appears in the Times is actually about me, anyway. I’m happily a nobody.

  310. 310
    GeorgeSalt says:

    It’s like they have decided to join arms with the Republicans and make everything so unpleasant regarding politics that I just tune out altogether.

    I’ve felt that way for a couple of months now and it isn’t just this blog — I see it all over the web. I do think there is a method to the incivility that is seen on so many blogs, and I do think the intent is to bully people into tuning out.

    And yes, on most blogs it is the same few people who seem to have nothing else to do but post this crap all day long. During moments when I’m getting my conspiracy-freak on, I suspect that these people are paid to do this.

  311. 311

    @General Stuck: Also that more than one person has enough trouble with issues of reading comprehension and semantic anal-retentiveness that they become too hellbent on showing WP up to realize that “He can’t be primaried after being impeached because he was impeached in the second term” a) refers to a previous person asking why Clinton wasn’t primaried after he was impeached and b) was posted in the context of, “You know, impeached in the second term. The one that term limits dictate was his last.”

    @west coast:

    BTW, the argument you’re trying to parrot is that Obama *can’t* win every fight, therefore he should settle for something less than what most of us here — firebagger, Obot or otherwise — can agree would’ve been the optimal outcome.

    It is NOT that Obama would win every fight and then implement a more-progressive policy that would in turn be a bad thing in the long run.

  312. 312
    LTMidnight says:

    @thejoz: So your argument is that “progressives” shouldn’t be expected to vote lockstep with the democrats, but African Americans are.

    It’s hypocrisy like this that proves my entire point.

  313. 313
    Suffern ACE says:

    @GeorgeSalt: I think all sites that encourage comments eventually sink to the level of Yahoo! News if given enough time. This site is not even close to hitting the bottom yet.

  314. 314
    gogol's wife says:

    @GeorgeSalt:

    I’m starting to suspect that too. No one has that much time on their hands, and it’s all too organized and too all-of-a-sudden.

  315. 315
    General Stuck says:

    @johnny walker:

    you get more incoherent with each comment.

  316. 316
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    It is getting to the point that reading the comments here is just no fun.

    Been that way for quite a while. It’s just that recent events in DC have brought out the worst in the dickheads.

    Don’t feel too bad, it looks like the Penis Brigade also has sway over at GOS these days too.

    It’s just a sign of the times. The terrorists have won. Even the supposedly rational team has lost all sense of reality and now just wants blood on the field of battle. I don’t think the crazies on either side care what happens now, as long as they get blood.

  317. 317
    4jkb4ia says:

    Clinton was not primaried in 1996 because he had higher approvals, the economy was good, and he represented the Democratic Party’s hope of survival in 1992. Obama’s approval and the state of the economy in six or seven months when Primary Challenger may have to decide to get in is TBA, and Obama was elected in a stunningly Democratic year.

    (It was one of Weigel or Larison who wrote that all that Primary Challenger could accomplish was something like Buchanan in 1992. If the issue is racial, could Primary Challenger win Iowa? Would black voters deliver the primary to Obama and save the Democratic Party for themselves? In SC they will have a chance to weigh in.)

  318. 318
    General Stuck says:

    @Sly:

    So comparing it to the spread of an insect colony is rather appropriate

    I say we blast off into orbit and fog bomb the blogosphere.

    only way to be sure.

  319. 319
    Suffern ACE says:

    @gogol’s wife: They wouldn’t have to pay anyone to get this result. What we need is some kind of resolution – all members to the coalition to your quarters until the New Year. Reflect on what you can do to bring people back together and reassemble January 2.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a mother to call a time out, and we’ve been drinking caffinated angry drinks for 18 months.

  320. 320

    @LTMidnight:

    The part where that summary is a bullshit self-serving inaccurate strawman that you made up and then turned around and used to prove that any white liberal criticism of Obama is based on irrational hatred of him personally.

    Wait my bad — that’s the part you don’t seem to get.

  321. 321
    4jkb4ia says:

    @Suffern ACE:
    Good comment

  322. 322
    GN says:

    @LTMidnight: And deny evidence of their excesses while focusing upon strawmen assertions which were never in contention.

    /washing hands of the bs frustrati

    Your comments have been utterly on point; great space.

  323. 323
    agrippa says:

    @dogwood:

    got it in one

  324. 324
    GeorgeSalt says:

    @Suffern ACE: Many have noted that the anonymity of the web emboldens many to say things that they would never say to someone in person. Also, I’ll confess to indulging in a bit of trolling from time to time. There is a certain puerile joy that comes from provoking someone to respond with rage. I wish I had an answer, but I’m at a loss. At times I think about simply abandoning the web, but I don’t because I feel that by doing so I’ll be ceding it to those who are trying to stifle those with whom they disagree.

    @gogol’s wife: Yes, it does seem to be a bit too organized. A few weeks ago, right before Thanksgiving when everyone was upset about the TSA pat-downs, I was sitting in an evening class at the local university, and a couple of fellow students managed to steer the conversation to the TSA. It seemed clear to me that they were reciting talking points, as it seemed to me that they were trying to drum up support for the big boycott that never materialised. There was nothing spontaneous about it and I doubted their concern for civil liberties as I knew from previous conversations that both of them were big advocates of racial profiling.

  325. 325
    Angela says:

    Thanks for trying John Cole and the others commentators who hung in there trying to reason with those who can’t or don’t want to see.

  326. 326
    GN says:

    @agrippa: I second that; really interesting point.

  327. 327
    Martin says:

    @thejoz:

    The idea of the Democrats “losing” “the black vote” “forever” is preposterous, because the alternatives are absolutely insane and self-destructive.

    I don’t think it’s preposterous at all. Not the forever part, mind you – be wary of anyone who speaks in absolutes.

    But I’ve never seen liberal attitudes in a minority group that could live up to those of privileged whites. Every group is more conservative once you sweep away the civil rights issues. Blacks and Latinos tend to be more religious and less open to nonracial social change. Prop 8 wasn’t killed in my county by African Americans but by devout Catholic Latinos who sided with Republicans over Democrats. Prop 19 went the same way. Taxation votes tend to show minority groups breaking more strongly for Republicans than their voter registration would suggest.

    Right now the Democratic party is holding onto minority groups because of the civil rights issue. If that ever vanishes, they’ll splinter just like you see with whites around individual issues.

  328. 328
    General Stuck says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    The issue isn’t the primary challenges per se. Its the way the discussion is going. If progressives want to take over the Democratic party, they have to convince African American voters and Hispanic voters, rather than just assuming that those voters will just go along for the ride, that they are being fair, and will deliver what those voters want. If progressives meet those objections with “I don’t care what you think”, then what’s the point of even discussing a primary challenge?

    Now that I think about it. The entire thing with the progs has the feel of a Custer’s Last Stand. An almost now or never desperation to it, that for the life of me, I can’t figure out why. I know why the wingnuts are acting this way, but the left, they are burning every bridge they cross, and that doesn’t seem all that smart for 10 to 15 percent of the liberal part of the national electorate, and only about 15 percent of self described liberal dems. I don’t want these people to self immolate their credibility, as on a lot of issues I agree with them, just not on process and tactics. They are an important part of the center left coalition, but the current state of their politicking they are employing is wholly unacceptable to me, and I think most dems and liberals on the whole. and seems to suggest an inflated sense of their numbers in this democracy.

    Becoming unhinged in one’s quest for relevance, when in small numbers cannot be a good long term, and likely short term strategy. Unless you are a modern republican, then it’s disco night at the asylum.

  329. 329
    agrippa says:

    @GN:

    I have to wonder what people think they are doing.

  330. 330
    Martin says:

    @General Stuck: Well, admittedly, it’s only a loud subset of the left losing their shit, not unlike what’s happened on the right. We call them firebaggers for a reason, after all.

    When I see Obama’s approvals drop, then I’ll decide that they aren’t completely out of touch with reality. Since it hasn’t moved an inch in 6 months, I have to put them in the same category as Limbaugh and Beck as folks proclaiming to speak for a population of millions but really speaking for a population of one.

  331. 331
    sb says:

    @agrippa: Yep. Yay for dogwood.

    Longtime reader, occasional commenter. The blog was valuable because there are, IMHO, some awfully smart and well-informed folk taking time to type on the keys. But of late, virtually every fucking thread deteriorates into the same kind of fight, saying the same things and I’m sorry but this shit is just ugly. Not that I’ll be missed–y’all keep on keepin’ on–but for the last couple of weeks at least, reading these threads is the equivalent of existing in Yeats Widening Gyre but in this case, the gyre is one endless toilet flush.

    Much love, people. If you’re in California, I’ll probably be contacting you via phone bank come election time. Peace.

  332. 332
    ino shinola says:

    John, re your comment on the comments.

    Yes the vitriol has gotten out of hand, some of these threads are downright embarrassing. But the attacks are just as vicious from Obama supporters as from critics.

    I really don’t get it. He does stupid stuff, I’ll call him on it. I’ll recount his history of doing stupid stuff. I thought about commenting on the article that says he does stupid stuff because he’s black, but I guess I won’t.

    That doesn’t mean I hate his supporters and want Palin to be president.

  333. 333
    General Stuck says:

    @Martin:

    Maybe it’s the relatively recent synergy with cable news and the ever expanding internet. Allows for a few folks to make a lot of noise, that when I do venture into watching cable news, and on about any channel there, I hear often the anchors premising a dem infighting report, with “progressives are unhappy” with this or that Obama policy or action. A negative feedback loop of sorts, that is not all that representative, though visible, and at odds with dems and liberals on the whole.

  334. 334

    @LTMidnight:

    So calling the president “Stupid” like Cenk Uygur did or questioning his masculinity like Michael Moore did, or comparing an Obama supporter to a Nazi propagandist like Glenn Greenwald did “common complaints”?

    Make up your mind what the terms here are. The “most common complaint” is that people don’t get legislation they feel is adequate*. When I responded to your summary that’s what I was referring to. A second ago you were saying the only complaints that the left had were that Obama didn’t give them legislation they wanted when they wanted it, but now suddenly the issue is some *other* complaint about Obama along with a bonus sidebar about something Greenwald allegedly called an Obama supporter.

    1) Are we talking about criticisms that are of Obama specifically, or are things people say about his supporters’ attitudes also counted as criticism of Obama himself?

    2) Could you please tell me whether or not your own summary was accurate? Because here you are asking me to respond to something that wasn’t present in the initial summary of progressive complaint re: the POTUS. I can only assume this is an acknowledgement that perhaps there are additional complaints you were initially unwilling to acknowledge.

    3) Speaking of which, if you’d like someone to have already responded to something *before* you post it for the first time you may need to build a time machine. If you wanted to me to address the “stupid” comment that by some AMAZING COINCIDENCE you’re now bringing up for the first time, maybe you could do something crazy like, I dunno–making it part of the discussion in a post that comes before the one in which you want to shit on me for not responding to something you hadn’t said. I don’t think Obama’s stupid — that and the fact that you never brought it up are why you didn’t see me defend or even address the claim.

    Gee, it’s almost like you got called on your shit and tried to move the goalposts!

    Which part of “It’s not the ‘calling President Obama on his shit’ that’s the problem. It’s the ‘painting his entire presidency as hit’ that’s the problem” do you not understand?

    The part where you can’t make up your mind whether the issue is a) painting Obama’s entire presidency as shit, b) complaining that Obama hasn’t provided satisfactory legislation or c) some other thing that you’ll put out on the spot if the previous 2 prove insufficient forms of argumentation. So if the actual problem is saying Obama’s entire presidency is shit does that mean it’s ok to be upset with legislation one sees as unsatisfactory?

    johnny walker: You’re being accused of calling people racists because you use the strawmen noted in the previous points to imply that well, since there aren’t any legitimate reasons for white progressives to be upset at Obama THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THEY ARENT TELLING US.

    LTM: Except I’ve never said that.

    Gosh, it’s almost like I predicted you’d try to evade this by splitting hairs between “said” and “implied.”

    So in your mind, reminding you that African Americans still overwhelmingly support this president, is intimidation? Somebody needs to hope they get some thicker skin for Christmas.

    I get that you like to think of this as a “friendly reminder.” I disagree. I see it as a threat: do not primary Obama, or else black people we will leave the party and it will be your fault. Feel free to disagree, but I would hope that you’re at least intellectually honest enough to say, “ok Johnny Walker, I can see how that would seem like intimidation if that’s how you perceive it.” I’m not saying you have to agree with my interpretation of the “black folks will leave” threat/promise/prediction/whatever, but it’s pretty willfully obtuse to pretend you can’t figure out how someone who sees it that way would see it as intimidation.

    How about fair, legitimate criticisms that don’t involve questioning his intellect, his masculinity, or engaging in “Manchurian Candidate” conspiracy theories.

    Oh, you mean like the ones that have been posted all over the internet following the tax deal suggesting this is bad policy, or that it’s ok policy short-term but bad for the country long-term because people doubt the onerous provisions will be allowed to expire, or that people simply feel Obama could’ve gotten more? Can I direct you to Google News, or Memeorandum perhaps?

    You can “think” it all you want, but when you start presenting it as fact, that’s when people have to call ‘bullshit’.

    Maybe you can break down for me the difference between presenting an opinion as fact and stating what you believe. So far you’ve granted that it’s ok to think bad things about Obama. Is there ever a situation in which it’s ok to voice them? How does one know when they’re presenting an opinion as fact? Is it when you say they are?

    *no, this is not a coded dog-whistle term by which I’m attempting to surreptitiously question the virility of the legislation in question. It’s a common word in the English language.

  335. 335

    @LTMidnight: ps.

    “Except I’ve never said that.”

    Seems to me you did, and perception’s reality amirite?

  336. 336
    Martin says:

    @General Stuck: Yeah, that’s my sense as well. And once it gets going, it ramps up. That thread a week or two back where mclaren was calling me a Nazi and Wyldpirate was in equally rare form suggests that’s the dynamic. I’d never seen that level of aggression out of either of them, and I don’t see it from Wyldpirate here now, so whatever enabled that to happen that day has since faded somewhat.

    As for the role of the media in all of this – it’s all just money. They need to attract and hold an audience. We know that punditry holds that audience, and punditry does it by advancing conflict, so it’s understandable that even regular news folks will embrace that conflict when it shows up.

  337. 337
    ricky says:

    Do some of the people here think anyone would listen to comments in person half the length of what is written here much less respond? Perhaps if you had bound them first and then were kind enough to remove the gag?

  338. 338
    Cat Genius says:

    @Cat:

    Saying Black Dems can’t tell the difference between criticism and racism… Thats pretty damn vile.

    Yeah, that's the same thing we say about you bozos.

  339. 339
    El Tiburon says:

    @thejoz:
    Until a better option comes along. And that ain’t anytime soon, unfortunately.

    That’s my point: WE ARE ALL in the same boat here. I could care less if Obama worshipped Satan. As long as he was not a Republican. Nor a Democrat carrying on Republican policies.

  340. 340

    @Suffern ACE: Um… what? What does that have to do with the issue of whether or not Stuck’s a fucking liar? I said he’s full of it because his summary of the thread did not include one event which plainly did happen, namely the threat/prediction/whatever that if Obama gets a primary challenge from the left then black Dems will stay home and it will be liberals’ fault when the Dems take a beating in ’12.

    Things I did NOT say would include denying that if Obama gets primaried it’ll be from the left, or whatever it is you’re on about.

    @ricky: Well I just read and responded to a gigantic one, and I enjoy reading and responding to gigantic ones so maybe just speak for your own attention span?

    Some people think some people are too verbose on the internet; others disagree. Man, that’s revelatory stuff.

  341. 341

    @General Stuck: You’re too stupid to figure out that by trying to look down your nose at someone you failed and made yourself look dumb instead. Simple enough, dumbshit?

  342. 342
    cat48 says:

    @Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people):

    I know. It’s just odd & illogical to me & I often leave going Why Bother??

  343. 343
    General Stuck says:

    @johnny walker:

    I haven’t addressed in this thread, the issue of what blacks will or will not do if Obama is primaried,

    What I addressed is when you get personal and nasty with the Obama criticism. IE call him a puzzy, or coward, or whatever the term I’ve seen bandied about here and on the netroots in general, I am going to accuse you of using racist memes. And if you persist, I am going to call you a racist. Those that don’t like that can kiss my hillbilly ass.

    There now, all clear.

  344. 344
    oondioline says:

    John Cole’s pussy hurts so much lately that I advise he visit an OB/Gyn.

  345. 345
    oondioline says:

    @General Stuck: Well, aren’t you a censorious little fuck.

    We’ll criticize as we think appropriate. You knock yourself out with your racism.

  346. 346
    Felonious Wench says:

    I think it’s the last election, combined with Seasonal Affective Disorder, that’s gotten people acting like slightly rabid raccoons these days.

    Everyone take your Vitamin D…and a deep breath.

    FW

  347. 347
    Rob Fast says:

    I don’t care what the president says, I care what he does. And unfortunately the president continues to show that he is really a conservative Democrat, and that’s okay with most of you.

    The new world order of billionaires telling all of us what to do and what to think, the end of social security and health care coming up, wars everywhere we can look, and total destruction of the environment. And all this president can do is blame ‘the left’ whoever that is, and to try to shut down all who disagree with him from the progessive wing. Enjoy the end, folks, but seriously, let’s put the blame where it belongs and it starts with this foolish and conservative white house who doesn’t care about anyone except the rich and powerful, but does provide lots of pretty speeches about the rest of us and why they really, really do care.

  348. 348
    BTD says:

    @John Cole:

    What’s your suggestion John? How should people speak about issue and President Obama in your opinion?

    I am genuinely curious.

  349. 349
    General Stuck says:

    @oondioline:

    Well, aren’t you a censorious little fuck.

    I have no power of censorship here. I have a keyboard and internet connection, just like you. You say what you want, and I will say what I want. Because that is the way the blog owner wants it.

    And cries of reverse racism will not change what I have to say.

  350. 350
    Suffern ACE says:

    @johnny walker: You seemed more concerned that the liberals wouldn’t be blamed for losses as that could result from running their own primary candidate. I noted that since I don’t see Obama being primaried from the left, then yes, if liberals primary and fracture the party even further, it is on those who organized the primary to heal those wounds, because they didn’t have to do that. If it were the conservadems melting down and talking primary, I’d give them the same warning.

    Are firebaggers never responsible for their own actions?

  351. 351
    Keith G says:

    @eemom: Jesus!

    you’re full of shit about what’s in it.

    Why be so easily abusive?

  352. 352
    General Stuck says:

    It is sadly funny, and some surprising to hear in libtard land, what amounts to echoes of some of the right wing shit on Fox News that has basically made the claim that since we elected a black man, then racism is over in this country. Poof, into an electoral disposal pod. That is suggestive, there suddenly are new rules and the old trappings of racist speech and it’s intricate web of entangled suggestion and oblique reference, constructed over the many decades, no longer is operative.

    That since Obama, as the first black presnit goes, now any weapon of dissent and critique will do, because it is liberals doing it, and all things are all at once equal for the first time. They are not. Nothing has changed other than the first black dude sits in the Oval Office, everything else is as it was, until it no longer is. And that time is not now.

  353. 353
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @LTMidnight:

    So calling the president “Stupid” like Cenk Uygur did or questioning his masculinity like Michael Moore did, or comparing an Obama supporter to a Nazi propagandist like Glenn Greenwald did “common complaints”?

    All of these things are over the top and uncalled for, but at least in the case of the first (intellect) and third (Godwin) slurs, those same sorts of attacks were made against GWB all the time. Statements like that were hyperbolic and foolish then, just as they are now (and I say that as somebody who thinks W was a dipshit moron with fascistic tendencies and doesn’t care that I’m being a hypocrite when I say so), but I’m not seeing how they’re particularly racist.

  354. 354
    fasteddie9318 says:

    It’s interesting that the same people who don’t like what they perceive to be right-wing memes being adopted in order to attack President Obama are freely adopting those same right wing memes to attack libtard progressives, particularly white (?) ones.

  355. 355
    GN says:

    @Rob Fast: God you clueless privileged ass people. Welcome to the United States. Did you really think that Reagan’s disgust with welfare queens wouldn’t eventually extend to you??? You thought that, didn’t you. Were I as heartless as your average frustrati I’d delight in the comeuppance. As it stands: I hope that the new media wakes up and shakes off the rantings of fools, instead choosing to participate in governing which includes a give and take, and a steadfast insistence in making progress inch by inch.

  356. 356
    Keith G says:

    @lol chikinburd: Brilliant observation. Thank you. This needs to to be memorized and put into practice by many here – including me.

  357. 357
    General Stuck says:

    And finally, for the suggestion, or claim that I am looking down my purity nose, let me dispel that nonsense. I grew up in the south as a white boy with all the bigoted sensory input that comes with such a birthright.

    We all have racist thoughts and ideas bouncing around in our brains, the difference is, that some of us take the time to construct personal alarm bells in our heads, with a commitment to self honesty to recognize and hopefully, healthily process out that bullshit when it starts living rent free in our heads. Before it affects what comes out our mouths, and deeds, praise be, the mighty FSM.

  358. 358
    GN says:

    @fasteddie9318: How in God’s name have the frustrati convinced themselves that President Obama=Bush. That’s your first FAIL. How dare you treat this man as akin to the worst President in modern memory. Shameless.

  359. 359
    Elie says:

    @GeorgeSalt:

    You got it.

    It IS INTENTIONAL —

  360. 360
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @johnny walker:

    You are really on a roll there, Mister Talkypants.

    How’s that persuasion thing going? Do you see the people moving over to your side as you write longer and longer posts?

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    What a fucking wanker.

    Carry on. The good thing about you holding fort here is that now that we know where you are, we can avoid you.

  361. 361
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @GN:

    Um, what? Maybe you should read what I wrote again.

  362. 362
    dogwood says:

    @sb: Thanks for the encouragement on my first post here, and frankly only the 3rd or 4th post I’ve ever made on any blog. Frankly, I think I’m just too long-winded to effectively participate in the rapid-fire format on blogs. The fact that I teach Advanced Placement US Gov. and Politics also makes me a bit too dispassionate when it comes to discussing politics in this type of setting. I’ve read this blog for years. Cole was my favorite Republican back in the day.

    As I said earlier, Dems and Reps don’t approach politics in the same way, and there’s probably not much we can do about it. Ronald Reagan only had to say “welfare queen” once and the troops repeated it until it became part of the lexicon. Obama was right during the 2008 primaries, “words matter.” If George Bush had called the Dems “hostages takers” that would have been repeated by every Republican blog, pundit, and politcian until it was imprinted on the brains of the American public. If Dems had dared to vote against health care benefits for 911 first responders, Republicans would have made them pay for decades. And if the far right and the far left nix the tax deal, Democrats will be held responsible for the “largest tax increase in the history of the galaxy.” Republicans are honing their message even as we speak. Many democrats are aiding and abetting this. Go figure.

    I’ve never been interested in bashing my own party, because I believe basically we are the good guys. But I have a good memory, and I’ll be damned if I’ll be influenced by a group of liberals who supported John Edwards in 07/08. His voting record defined Blue Dog conservatism. Hence I’m underwhelmed by their political savvy. The only bright spot on the Democratic horizon right now, is that Sarah Palin’s candidacy will take all the oxygen out of the room, and the Democratic food fight will be somewhat ignored by the media.

  363. 363
    Jewish Steel says:

    I may have to install Cleek’s pie filter to read my own damned blog.

    My thoughts keep turning to the pie filter, too. How long can I hold out? Not much longer, I fear.

  364. 364
    DaBomb says:

    @eemom: Read the comments to that same article. People are not fans of Cornel West or Tavis Smiley.

  365. 365
    LTMidnight says:

    @johnny walker:

    You’re too stupid to figure out that by trying to look down your nose at someone you failed and made yourself look dumb instead. Simple enough, dumbshit?

    Okay, johnny boy, I thought I was debating with an adult. After such infantile insults, you’ve proven that you’re anything but an adult.

    If you’re real good from now until Christmas, maybe Kris Kringle will get you that thicker skin that you need so badly.

    In the meantime, us grown ups will continue to have this debate and hopefully come to some consensus.

  366. 366
    calling all toasters says:

    I see Bipole Cole is back to Obamabagging.

    And Ishmael Reed is saying is that we should have nominated Hillary, because if Obama is a tough negotiator with the Republicans he’ll get a D. Or something. That Cole even links to this gibberish shows how far he’s gone. Today.

  367. 367
    debit says:

    @Jewish Steel: It’s been a sanity saver for me. I held off on installing it for a long time. I don’t like to automatically discount another person’s attempt to communicate, but the people on my filter don’t want to communicate; they want to spread their ugliness. Sorry, I can’t think of a better way to describe it. There’s no back and forth, no exchange of ideas, just an endless stream of bile.

  368. 368
    shortstop says:

    I am shocked, shocked that this thread contains several rank idjits whose big takeaway is, “I don’t have everything! White people can suffer, too, so this statement is just not accurate!” Christ, some of you people are beyond hopeless. You couldn’t spot the point if it held both your eyes open with toothpicks and danced naked two feet from your face.

  369. 369
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @debit:

    Hey, never say bile to people who may have had their gall bladders removed. It’s a sensitive area.

  370. 370
    agrippa says:

    @dogwood:

    Again: got it in one.

    I am afraid that I do not ‘get it’. or, maybe I do.

    The party seems to have no discipline or direction. Which means an inability to set priorities and act upon them.

    In Jan 2009, it should have been crystal clear what needed to be done. Congress and the WH should have been on the same page, with a clear agenda – and ready to go.

    What did I see? no discipline, no focus; just dithering; especially by the prima donnas in the Senate. Disgraceful.

    Now, there is this feeding frenzy.

    Look at those people across the aisle. It is they who are the enemy.

    Acquire your target — and fire for effect.

  371. 371
    Corner Stone says:

    @calling all toasters:

    I see Bipole Cole is back to Obamabagging.

    Dude is in to some serious stages of denial.

  372. 372
    calling all toasters says:

    @eemom: Hey, when you know you’re wrong you look for the most unreasonable, irritating asshole to be on your side (see: attorneys). Then maybe people won’t fuck with you.

    Doesn’t really work in a BJ comment thread, though, does it?

  373. 373
    Cat says:

    @GN:

    frustrati

    Ah I get an answer to my question! Its a way to devalue and downplay people who disagree with you by calling them a cute name to make them seem unserious.

    Well played!

  374. 374
    oondioline says:

    WEN U GIT MAD FIR RICH PEEPLE STELING AL ARE MONEY IT MEAN U R RACIST

    DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  375. 375
    Corner Stone says:

    @Cat: It’s SOP here at BJ.

  376. 376

    @LTMidnight: Well gosh, I guess that conveniently excuses you from having to own up to how badly you were moving the goalposts and changing arguments on the fly. Nah, sorry: the official policy of the guy who runs this place is that it’s fine to tell people to fuck off, get lost, call them names, etc. as long as you feel like you’ve put up with too much of their crap. As convenient as it must be to find an excuse to take the high road on me when you can’t win on substance, if you look you’ll notice that Stuck is the one and only person I talk to like that. He just has that special of a place in my heart, so just like everyone here from Cole on down I’ll reserve the right to get vulgar on him when I can’t stand his crap anymore.

    Now, did you have anything to say to the actual substance of the last post of mine that was directed at you? No? Didn’t think so. What a convenient and not-at-all suspicious coincidence to find out I have to be an “adult” in my interactions with everyone here or else you didn’t actually just issue a summary of liberal complaints re: Obama that you can’t even stick to yourself. ‘cuz yknow, if I dictate my post to a 10-year-old nephew with good typing skills then the words lose all meaning, because as we know arguments cannot stand on their own and can only be evaluated to be correct or not based on how we personally feel about the person making them.

    @Suffern ACE: What I’m concerned about is the hypocrisy. Some people here think that when liberal folks talk about staying home from the polls, being unsure about supporting the Dems, etc. they’re engaging in traitorous pro-Republican behavior that demonstrates they’re too naive to realize they’re going to help elect Sarah Palin at best and secretly want Sarah Palin to be President at worse… up until the point where black folks start talking about staying home from the polls or Cole says he wishes he voted for the Republican because his new Senator’s single-vote-long record is more than he can live with, at which time staying home (or even voting Republican) becomes a perfectly legitimate way to register your frustration — or at least not a big enough deal to accuse the people talking about doing it of wanting Palin to be POTUS.

    If liberals stay home and Sarah Palin gets elected it is liberals’ fault. If black people stay home and Sarah Palin get elected it is liberal’s fault. Etc.

    Try to keep up.

    @General Stuck:

    “What I addressed is when you get personal and nasty with the Obama criticism. IE call him a puzzy, or coward, or whatever the term I’ve seen bandied about here and on the netroots in general, I am going to accuse you of using racist memes. And if you persist, I am going to call you a racist. Those that don’t like that can kiss my hillbilly ass.”

    Which I’m sure means you can point to an example of me doing this.

    DaBomb : But Ishmael Reed on the other hand is a household name and speaks for everyone?

  377. 377
    west coast says:

    @johnny walker:

    the argument you’re trying to parrot is that Obama can’t win every fight, therefore he should settle for something less than what most of us here—firebagger, Obot or otherwise—can agree would’ve been the optimal outcome.

    Not even close.

    The argument I’m actually making is this: “Winning” is a childish metric that requires someone else “losing.” Achieving is the only metric that matters.

    The same kind of bullshit that gets tossed about Obama today was tossed about Clinton in the ’90’s, yet I’d gladly take any one of their achievements over the combined achievements of all those who deride them as “GOP lite.”

  378. 378
    kwAwk says:

    JC said:

    Just look at this thread. I post a piece telling how a lot of African Americans feel regarding the over the top treatment of Obama. A number of African American commenters chime in and say, “Yes, we don’t think they are racist, but we don’t think other politicians have been treated this way, and we feel that Obama is being treated differently.”

    I agree that some of the criticism of Obama is over the top. I know the capitulation on the public option really upset me.

    I understand that a number of African Americans feel that Obama is being treated differently, but as a person who isn’t an African American I feel that we are being expected to treat Obama differently because he is African American.

    Are our feelings less valid than those of African American commenters?

    My feeling on the matter is that Obama over-sold himself a little bit. I’ve said this before but I think he put some things in his campaign platform that he didn’t really agree with or didn’t feel to be as important as many people in the base did in order to get elected. Or just in order to win the primary in 2008.

    If you really feel that Obama is being treated differently than other members of the Democratic party, try bringing up the name Harry Reid over at the GOS. Or Blanche Lincoln. Or Ben Nelson. Or Mary Landreau. Or Joe Lieberman.

    We’ll probably look back in a few years and think that a lot of things that were accomplished were great things or we may look back and regret what more could have been accomplished. But we can also look back at LBJ who is given credit for a large portion of the left’s accomplishments in the past 50 years and notice that even he was pretty much driven from office because he didn’t feel he had the support to win another term.

    For good or bad Obama is in my opinion being treated the same way as Clinton, Carter and Johnson the three Dem Presidents who came before him.

    I suppose the question we should discussing is whether it is productive to always be treating Democratic Presidents this way or what we can do to make the Dem side feel more unified and successful.

  379. 379
    John Cole says:

    @calling all toasters:

    I see Bipole Cole is back to Obamabagging.

    And this is precisely what I’m talking about. This post is about how a lot of AA perceive the treatment about Obama, not Obama. But to you, it gets boiled down to a manichean choice- you’re either for him or against him.

    Don’t know why I am even bothering. You’re clearly not listening to what I’m saying.

  380. 380
    Buck says:

    I’ve been away for a while and I’m a tad bit confused by all the bitching… It appears that Cole and others would prefer no Obama bashing. How about other top democrats? Are they fair game, or is that a no-no too? Is Republican bashing still allowed? Maybe we should only say nice things about Gingrich? Kiss up to Boehner? Tell McConnell to bite our collective asses?

    How far can we go? How much can we say? What exactly are the rules? Are there a set posted somewhere?

    Maybe I went too far asking?

    Maybe I’ll be asked to leave?

    Who knows any more…?

  381. 381
    John Cole says:

    What’s your suggestion John? How should people speak about issue and President Obama in your opinion?

    How about some recognition that there is more to the debate than “Obama proposed this, I think this is best, ZOMG OBAMA SUCKS WHY WON’T HE FIGHT.”

    There are a range of things going on here- there’s what you want, there’s what Obama wants, there is what Obama thinks he can realistically get through the House and Senate, there is what the Senate wants, there is what the House wants, and standing in the way cockblocking everything is the GOP and the blue dogs.

    Yet all we here is how everything is Obama’s fault. And do the loudmouths ever admit they were wrong? They wanted Harry Reid to stand up to Collins last week. He did. The vote failed. And the firebaggers blamed… Obama.

    I never thought I would miss Rahm, but I do. At least when he was around, he served as a useful lightning rod for the idiots. Now they are all “Obama sucks” all the time.

    And how bout maybe some recognition that some outrage junkie on a progressive blog may not know as much about a situation as the President?

    And how about when you disagree with Obama (and I don’t mean you specificallly) you act with a little fucking respect. I don’t mean roll over and leader worship, but some basic fucking respect for the man and the office. The shit Obama has been subjected to from the right is another thing, but the attacks from the hard left have been disgusting in their own right.

    I could go on and on. The only good thing out of this is I know now who to ignore, because when someone is screaming at 11 for 2 years, never acknowledges reality, never admits mistake, and can get all worked up over this post, which only really says “Hey, a lot of people feel this way,” I know I can apply my mental pie filter. When people were screaming about Obama’s speech to the HRC being up an hour late on the administration’s website, I took them off my blogroll. There is a reason I ignore Dave Sirota.

  382. 382
    debit says:

    @Buck: If you really want to know the culture of the blog and its denizens, lurk moar. If you’re just being obnoxiously disingenuous, carry on. There’s plenty of room on the pie filter.

  383. 383
    Corner Stone says:

    @johnny walker:

    or Cole says he wishes he voted for the Republican because his new Senator’s single-vote-long record is more than he can live with, at which time staying home (or even voting Republican) becomes a perfectly legitimate way to register your frustration

    This can not be stated here enough.

  384. 384
    John Cole says:

    @Corner Stone: That isn’t a sign of hypocrisy at all. I view gay rights as a bridge too far, period. I don’t support bigots.

  385. 385
    oondioline says:

    UR RITE ABOUT OBAM BUT UR TOO MEEN

    – Shorter John Cole

  386. 386
    John Cole says:

    It appears that Cole and others would prefer no Obama bashing.

    Obvious troll is obvious. When you think Obama is wrong, say it. We’re talking about tone and tenor of the criticism.

  387. 387
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @John Cole: And others view x, y or z as a bridge too far. Quit being such a fucking emopants.

  388. 388
    oondioline says:

    @John Cole: What are you, a twelve-year-old emo?

    Stop talking about Obama, people, or John will start the cutting again.

  389. 389
    oondioline says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: John wears black on the outside because he’s a fussy, lib-hating priss on the inside.

  390. 390
    taylormattd says:

    @alwhite: Jesus fucking christ you people are fucking stupid, blind, and literally unable to read what is in front of your face.

    And yes, FUCK OFF.

    John, for christ sake, quit with the horseshit and ban these douchebags already.

  391. 391
    General Stuck says:

    @oondioline:

    John wears black on the outside because he’s a fussy, lib-hating priss on the inside.

    you sir, are a piece of shit, and just the kind of knuckledragging motherfucker this thread post was directed at.

  392. 392
    Buck says:

    @debit:

    Nope. I truly do not know the rules.

    But, thank you for telling me to shut up.

    May I have some of that pie now? I insist!

    :-)

  393. 393
    Buck says:

    @John Cole:

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    Shoot first, then ask questions much?

    Sheeesh… things really have gone to hell here.

  394. 394
    debit says:

    @Buck: No, I wasn’t telling you to shut up. Back in the day before blogs when you joined mailing lists it was common wisdom; lurk before posting. Read back and see what people have already talked to death, and what topics are filled with landmines. It’s common sense, and IMO, common courtesy.

    Your question was phrased in a way that seemed disingenuous. If it was sincere, I apologize. My suggestion still stands. It won’t kill anyone to take a day or two to get a feel for the place before jumping in.

  395. 395
    calling all toasters says:

    @John Cole:

    Don’t know why I am even bothering. You’re clearly not listening to what I’m saying.

    You found ONE black writer who has a (borderline-incoherent) piece published in the NYT and you lord it over everyone that (1) the Times agrees with you and (2) so do a lot of black people. You want us to stop the criticism of Obama and you’re going to some supposed higher authorities. We all heard that loud and clear.

  396. 396
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    @John Cole:

    This post is about how a lot of AA perceive the treatment about Obama

    Your observation is trivial. Every functioning adult to the left of Glenn Beck knows that the larger society has held and continues to hold African-Americans to a different set of standards. The important question, which you have been dogmatically ignoring, is what should the consequences be, given this assumption, for our evaluation of Barack Obama? How should we change the way we talk about, write about, even think about Barack Obama given this assumption? Your guidance on this would be greatly appreciated.

  397. 397
    General Stuck says:

    @johnny walker:

    It was a general statement I originally made, and you objected to, . Then I made it again, clearer this time, and again as a general statement. it is descriptive to apply to those it applies to. no more no less.

  398. 398
    Corner Stone says:

    @John Cole: No. Of course not.

  399. 399
    John Cole says:

    You want us to stop the criticism of Obama and you’re going to some supposed higher authorities. We all heard that loud and clear.

    I’m not wasting any more time with you. You’ll probably be one of the idiots, when I inevitably criticize Obama this week for something say something to the effect of ‘Cole’s coming to the dark side” or something equally idiotic.

  400. 400
    ricky says:

    @John Cole:

    You do know if Obama were not missing a carrying case of manly parts and challenged the R’s to a good game of legislative chicken, and the R’s showed a basketful of testoterone producers, any potential bad things that resulted from the battle of nuts would be blamed by the public on the Republicans. Because the real Base says so.
    They know when things are Obama’s fault and when they are not. And they would know this was not, so the public would as well.

    Then we could all get back to worrying about who took impeachment off the table and killed JFK.

  401. 401
    Buck says:

    @debit:

    My apologies, Deb… Looks like I jumped the gun a bit too.

    I was around during the BJ HRC/Obama fights. And it wasn’t pretty! I think some people (including yours truly) decided to take a rest from all of it.

    Seems like the same war, only a different battle, being waged here today.

    Sad.

  402. 402
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    @John Cole:

    How about some recognition that there is more to the debate than “Obama proposed this, I think this is best, ZOMG OBAMA SUCKS WHY WON’T HE FIGHT.”

    This isn’t that difficult; you can ignore the tiny number of people who do something like this (if it’s even distinguishable from zero, since what you’re doing here is inventing a preposterous strawman) and honestly engage the people who don’t, and one hopes you don’t dishonestly lump all members of the former group with the latter. Not difficult at all.

  403. 403
    nancydarling says:

    @Buck: No calling women “cunts” like that pirate guy—he did apologize. That’s not my number one rule, but its up there. “dick” just doesn’t seem to have the same connotation but if it does we should discourage that too. Why do we have to call names at all? Reread John’s post with the Reed excerpt. I think most of the people here who got all het up did not truly understand it. His point is that many progressives have their panties in a wad because they didn’t get everything they wanted, when they wanted it. Black folks are used to it, unfortunately. This comment is for Mr. Toasters also.

  404. 404
    calling all toasters says:

    @John Cole:

    You’ll probably be one of the idiots, when I inevitably criticize Obama this week for something say something to the effect of ‘Cole’s coming to the dark side” or something equally idiotic.

    No, I’m the type of idiot who calls you out on the bullshit nature of this post and the bullshit nature of the link (in that suddenly the Times and Ishmael Reed are the arbiters of correct thought) and has absolutely zero expectations of a response to those actual points. Or, to put it in your terms: why do I even bother? You’re clearly not listening to what I say. Also, shit show fail parade. Etc., too.

  405. 405
    ricky says:

    @oondioline:

    Brevity in the display of no intellect is no vice. The display of no intellect is no virtue.

  406. 406
    amk says:

    Great post cole. Especially the update,

  407. 407
    Buck says:

    @nancydarling:

    Hiya!

    I hate the use of the “C” word too. Anyone using it loses a lot of credibility, and any argument they’re trying to put forth.

    Black folks are used to it, unfortunately.

    I’m gay. I know all about let-downs. But, on the bright side, we’ve sure came a long way in the last few decades! Gotta be happy about that!

    :-)

  408. 408
    kwAwk says:

    @oondioline:

    Wow. Bringing Morrissey into this? That is low.

    I suppose if you seem a little strange, well that’s because you are.

  409. 409
    nancydarling says:

    @Buck: YES. Sometimes two steps forward and one and a half steps back, but, still, its progress.

  410. 410
    BTD says:

    @John Cole:

    This is actually a pretty compelling road map imo.

    Believe it or not, I have been trying to do it that way (my TL commentariat does not however.)

    Here’s the thing – I thought the NYTimes piece you cited pretty vapid. There was no acknowledgment at all that maybe people disagreed with Obama on the merits, be they on policy or politics.

    In short, I think you have a good point, the NYTimes piece did not in terms of MOST criticism of Obama from progressives.

  411. 411
    brantl says:

    @mutt:
    “the ONLY thing you can say positive about him is that he’s not Huckabee, Palin, or McNuts. That, by itself, dosnt mean I therefore must support him. ”

    IF you posit that those people are typical of who the wingnuts will run next time (AND THEY ARE), then yes, is DOES mean you must therefore support him, if you feel that it’s necessary that the Republicans lose, and morally, they must.

  412. 412
    debit says:

    @Buck: Heh. I was in the Edwards camp so not only did I miss most of the HRC/Obama stuff, I also have appallingly bad taste in men.

    Part of John’s frustration, that I happen to share, is due to not one single topic is spared by a handful of purity trolls. John or another front pager can post a heartwarming pet story and within five comments someone comes in at full burn with a screed about how Obama or whoever today’s target is has failed him/her and the country and doomed us all to eternity. And from there they threadjack the entire conversation. If you scroll back to the Elizabeth Edwards eulogy thread posted by ABL you’ll see an example of what I mean.

    Frankly, we’re all weary of it, except for the few who seem to feed off their own and others anger.

  413. 413
    mclaren says:

    The commentariat here has gone precipitously downhill and I can’t put my finger on when it happened.

    “In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea.” — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe.

  414. 414
    calling all toasters says:

    @nancydarling: Well, I actually agree about the expectations point. I din’t comment on it because I thought it was old news. The new news was Reed flailing around to show that Obama is ‘cool’ and that’s great because if he wasn’t he’d be called ‘rowdy” and such. I even agree with that, and consider that old news. But he somehow lays this all on white liberals, when the people who have done this are the establishment and conservative hacks. Liberals have constantly applauded Obama’s manner and booed his tactics and his apparently new moderate Republicanism. And if Eric Holder were turned loose to go full metal Giuliani on the Bush administration, we’d stand up and cheer both him and Obama, not call them “rowdy.” So about what’s been happening lately he’s just wrong, and obviously wrong.

  415. 415
    snarkyspice says:

    Wow. What happened to this site?

    Used to be lots of interesting commentary and especially lots of smart and funny comments from people who live in the real world. I always used to feel I learned something.

    Now every comments section is overrun by a bunch of GOS types insisting in increasingly strident tones that we all purify ourselves ideologically. Regardless of how unproductive that strategy always is every damn time it’s tried by anyone on either side. Yeah, let’s out-Palin Palin!

    I’ll be back if and when the losers get bored and go back to hounding BWD or whoever is unacceptably unpure this month.

  416. 416
    calling all toasters says:

    @calling all toasters: Ack. “new news” –> “other news”

  417. 417
    brantl says:

    @Cat: Because he didn’t veto it, as Bush would have. The positive role of a president is to cheerlead good legislation and not veto it. The negative role of the president is to veto bad legislation, and to cheerlead against it.

  418. 418
    Nick in PA says:

    The Kos is way worse. The worst commenters here are like thr front-pagers over there. I try to respond in the comments and get unmercifully shat upon. ‘Make the GOP own their vote against unemployment benefits! Embarrass them with it! Then they will give in!’

    Yeah … that’ll work.

  419. 419
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @John Cole:

    I’m not going to go all Boehner, but a lot of us are here because we have respect for you, dude.

    And I think that’s the best post you ever made.

    Now come here and kiss me you big lug.

  420. 420

    @John Cole:

    When you think Obama is wrong, say it. We’re talking about tone and tenor of the criticism.

    Do you have any specific examples of this horrible tone and tenor you’re talking about, that reveals some sort of racial animus? I see you talking about how “the left is making criticisms against Obama that sound like what the Teabaggers say!” Really? Leftists are calling him “HItler”, circulating pictures of him dressed up as a witch doctor or a pimp, implying he wants to round up white people in camps, etc? What do you mean?

    Also, I don’t recall a long record of you, John, showing such open concern for the opinions of black Americans. Not that you’ve been against them, just that you haven’t front-paged it until now, when you could use those concerns as a shibboleth to hammer people you disagree with. Your desire not to offend black voters would mean a lot more if it had been expressed prior to this.

    So what do the members of the dickhead colony do? Loudly scream “Fuck you for feeling that way and fuck you for calling me racist and fuck Obama for being such a weak pussy.”

    Keeping in mind I’ve only read through half the comments in this thread. . . what in blue blazes are you talking about? Who has launched this violent, vitriolic, unreasoned counterstrike against you? Corner Stone? He used the word “Jackass” once in the first hundred-odd posts. WyldPirate? He said General Stuck acts like a “dumbass” and said his arguments–but not himself–are “horseshit”. El Cid? Nothing offensive in his posts. Ditto Zifnab and Beltane. Meanwhile, you have General Stuck who does absolutely nothing but insult people and insist he ignores them (?), doing more to poison the well than all the posters I named combined.

    “It is draining” you say. You know what is really draining? Being called “stupid”, “moron”, “pinhead”, “douchebag”, “idiot”, “dickhead”, “asshole”, etc etc etc just because you disagree with someone. It’s draining to come to this place with a survey or a study and try to make a rational argument only to be met with mindless, childish insults and unjustified rage. You, yourself, John Cole, are as bad at this as anyone else, and if you don’t like the climate here at Balloon Juice, look in the mirror to start finding a solution. Yes, it’s your place, but don’t hurl bitter, spiteful anger at people in lieu of a fact-based case and then wonder at the degenerating tenor of discussion. That’s a non-starter.

  421. 421
    Buck says:

    @nancydarling:

    :-)

    @debit:

    Frankly, we’re all weary of it…

    I see what you mean, but I have no clue as to how to bring about anything resembling harmony.

  422. 422
    ricky says:

    Liberals have constantly applauded Obama’s manner and booed his tactics and his apparently new moderate Republicanism. And if Eric Holder were turned loose to go full metal Giuliani on the Bush administration, we’d stand up and cheer both him and Obama

    ,”

    Because, you know, all liberals think alike.

  423. 423
    oondioline says:

    @General Stuck: I’m sorry that I don’t conduct my political criticism in the “tone and tenor” that apparently is required in the New Emo Balloon Juice Groupthink.

    It’s obviously because I hate black people.

  424. 424
    calling all toasters says:

    @ricky: @ricky: If you have a substantive response I would be glad to hear it, but, really, what liberals have criticized Obama for his thoughtful but sometimes meandering speaking style? For his obvious self-control? And what liberals have applauded him for his pre-emptive concessions to the Republicans?

  425. 425
    LTMidnight says:

    @taylormattd: John doesn’t ban people. And with all respect to John, it’s kinda hypocritical to take a “I don’t ban people” approach but then complain how certain people are ruining intelligent debate on this site.

    It’s like complaining how you have a roach problem, yet refuse to pop open the can of Black Flag you have in your cabinet.

  426. 426

    @LTMidnight:

    It would be much, much worse if he started banning people for “ruining intelligent debate” but leaving the “you disagree with me?!?!?!? You must be a stupid retarded idiot moron!” contingent in place.

  427. 427
    amk says:

    @alwhite: How about starting your own poutrage blog instead whining about victimhood ?

  428. 428
    Cat says:

    I’m going to post this since maybe most of you have WyldePirate pie filtered.

    This links to the original report on Pew’s website and not some no name website. Its question number 14.

    http://people-press.org/report.....p-miracles

    The Pew research poll from December 1994 where 66% of Democrats wanted Clinton Primaried.

  429. 429
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    You know what is really draining? Being called “stupid”, “moron”, “pinhead”, “douchebag”, “idiot”, “dickhead”, “asshole”, etc etc etc just because you disagree with someone.

    Oh absolutely, because the Internet is known for being so genteel.

    People come here to be stroked.

  430. 430
    ricky says:

    @calling all toasters:

    No, Mr. Toaster. All liberals think alike as you said, and you speak for us. No need to respond substantively. Just tell me when to applaud and “Full metal Giuliani ahead.”@oondioline: Actually I think there is a root cause that might be contributing to both to your deficiencies with tone and tenor and your problems relating to people of another color.

    No need to apologize now that you have acknowledged the
    problems. Just get to work on it. Remember, one step at a time.

  431. 431
    ricky says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    Don’t you think some come here because they have been stroked enough and want to give it a rest?

  432. 432
    LTMidnight says:

    @johnny walker: It’s a waste to argue with you, kid, because no matter what you’re going to see whatever you want to see. The vast majority of people who read what I wrote get what I’m trying to say, even if they don’t agree with it.

    It’s not my fault that you’re either too dense or too full of your own shit to get it. All you’re doing is proving my point. There’s no riddle of the sphinx in what I wrote. It is what it is.

  433. 433
    Triassic Sands says:

    @General Stuck:

    I have no power of censorship here

    .

    Oops.

    “Censorious” refers to someone given to censure, not censorship.

  434. 434
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @ricky:

    That’s funny. Really. I think it is more likely that people come here for pie. Delicious pie.

    Tell you aren’t serious. You had better material when you were Perry Como. (That is you, right?)

  435. 435
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    @DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective:

    Sorry, I meant “smoked.”

  436. 436
    oondioline says:

    @ricky: My problems with tone and tenor is that I’m an asshole, not that I’m a racist.

    But you’re apparently one too, fucko, for so easily assessing someone’s root motivations.

    Too bad that you use your assholery for evil and I for good.

  437. 437
    dogwood says:

    @agrippa: I think another thing that’s going on here lies in the nature of the inception of the netroots in general. Liberal blogs coalesced around a hatred for George Bush in particular and all Republicans more generally. They were the opposition and drew diarists and commentators who fit that role nicely. Thus, it’s pretty predictable that they would keep that attitude after the 2008 election. They only like to play offense. What is amazing is the speed at which Republicans can switch from offense to defense and back again without blinking an eye. For Republicans loyalty trumps ideology in almost every case, exceptions being when minorities are involved. Witness Bush’s failure on immigration reform. Even when they have to abandon a presidents like Nixon or Bush, it is truly painful for them. It’s just who they are. They give their presidents lots of mulligans, and believe me every president need quite a few. What’s been most interesting to me about the crowd that has turned on the president is their naivete about how government works and how power is wielded. It’s as if they believe that machismo bs about the president being “the most powerful man in the world.” He’s not, and Obama knows this.

  438. 438
    General Stuck says:

    @Triassic Sands:

    yea, well, whatever. I just call bullshit and let the grammar nazi’s sort out the linguistic niceties.

  439. 439
    calling all toasters says:

    @ricky: Oh, I see. You live by the misquote and the insinuation. You accuse me of saying all liberals think alike, when I said nothing of the sort. When I say that liberals have generally acted in a certain way, you can’t come up with a counter-example. And you just pile on the snark without a whit of substance.

    Just one question: you’re really Sarah Palin, aren’t you?

  440. 440
    calling all toasters says:

    @Triassic Sands: Too bad. If you look at post #49, you’ll see Stuck is OK with censorship, too.

  441. 441
    Triassic Sands says:

    @General Stuck:

    Gee, sorry. I guess it’s unimportant to understand what someone is saying to you before you respond.

    It must be really unpleasant being you.

  442. 442
    calling all toasters says:

    @Triassic Sands: Hey, if you think words have agreed-upon, fairly constant meanings that just proves you’re– sorry, “your”– a grammar nazi.

  443. 443
    General Stuck says:

    @calling all toasters: @Triassic Sands:

    You clowns are like bridge trolls that jump out and kick the shins of passers by. Then scurry back under the bridge, till you spot some other meaningless reason to scurry out and do it all over again. And yes, I would ban all the assholes, youze two, and me as well, and since I am not the government, the term censorship, or Censorious , or whatever, wouldn’t apply. It would just be a bunch of assholes getting their due.

  444. 444
    HopeOverFear says:

    Truth hurts, don’t it? LOL

  445. 445
    General Stuck says:

    @calling all toasters:

    And what happened to you dude?, you used to have some sense if i recall correctly. Now you are just another whinging firebagger. sorry to see.

  446. 446
    WyldPirate says:

    @Cat:

    Nice of you to post that again, Cat. But it’s like you said earlier facts don’t matter too much to some of the Obotomized purity trolls on here.

  447. 447
    oondioline says:

    @General Stuck: You post a fuckload for someone whose only message is “Shut up, racists.”

  448. 448
    calling all toasters says:

    @General Stuck: I have exactly the same sense now that I had when I supported Obama in the primaries. It’s just that now I have more information. Obama gave every sense that he understood the two major crises of our time in America: the Reaganism-engedered, structural economic crisis and the Bush-engendered crisis of creeping authoritarianism. He has filled his administration with people who don’t give a damn about either and essentially ceded the debate to the Republicans on both, and he didn’t need to. And he’s getting worse. The lack of even trying for a public option: well, that was bad, but overall the ACA was a very positive step. Now he’s just giving away the store and proclaiming that we will again if the Republicans have enough “hostage.” WTF? And it’s obvious (to me at least) that he expects liberals to pat him on the back for this. It’s like he never met a liberal in his life :( Well, at least he gets mad at us for being right– I’m going to generously conclude that this indicates he knows it. So my attitude is: keep fighting Obama and pissing him off and maybe eventually he’ll do better. It’s the only sensible thing.

  449. 449

    You know I’m willing to bet that the firebagger contingent here, Joe Beese, Bob Boblaw, mclaren, Wyldpirate are about as committed to the progressive causes they champion as Jonah Goldberg, Erick Erickson or any other chickenhawk conservative is committed to serving in the military. Yeah, talk is cheap, but have any of you dogfuckers ever done anything other than talk? I seriously doubt it.

  450. 450
    Triassic Sands says:

    @General Stuck:

    It’s impossible to have an exchange with you without name-calling, which is why I generally ignore you. I find if I read through a thread and skip all of your comments, I’ve missed at least 75% of the pointless, unpleasant, adolescent crap that exists on BJ.

    I guess I’ll just have to be satisfied knowing that it can’t be too long before you throw another of your patented tantrums and threaten to leave Balloon Juice. After all, there is always the hope that the next time you’ll really mean it.

    Like I said, it must be really unpleasant being you.

  451. 451
    General Stuck says:

    @Triassic Sands:

    After all, there is always the hope that the next time you’ll really mean it.

    I wouldn’t count on it, and I am quite comfortable in my own skin these days, albeit with some unpleasant medical problems I could do without. I bet your farts smell like fresh pansies. amirite?

  452. 452
    Triassic Sands says:

    @calling all toasters:

    Well, toaster, I guess I’d rather be a grammar nazi than what Stuck go stuck with. Apparently, to him a word means only what he “choose(s) it to mean – neither more nor less.”

    Tune in for “The Adventures of Stuck in Wonderland.”

    And you’ve been around BJ long enough to know that to Stuck having sense means agreeing with Stuck. In his cramped little world their is only room for acceptable thought — an attitude I find much more reminiscent of Republicans than Democrats.

  453. 453
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .
    I don’t understand why you all fail to realize that President Obama has taken ALL of this into consideration, and that he depends on the ultra-left criticizing him and his policies, and he depends on the ultra-right praising him and his policies. Also too the ultra-centrists.

    It’s all playing out exactly according to his plan, and each of us has our role in helping him attain his goals.
    .
    .

  454. 454
    Corner Stone says:

    @Triassic Sands:

    In his[Stuck’s] cramped little world

    Well, he is an admitted agoraphobe.

  455. 455
    General Stuck says:

    @Triassic Sands:

    And you’ve been around BJ long enough to know that to Stuck having sense means agreeing with Stuck.

    teehee, seems I surely have gotten under your timid skin, and in that delicate little head of yours. Always good to know when one’s work is succeeding.

  456. 456
    Corner Stone says:

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas: Uncle Clarence Thomas, I wish you’d tell us more about this condition.

  457. 457
    mclaren says:

    @Martin:

    Give us a pointer to the specific place where I called you a Nazi or stand revealed as a liar and a character assassin.

    I pointed out you lied and lied and lied and lied and lied. I have never called you a Nazi. You’re a pathological compulsive liar, Martin, and that’s an entirely different thing from a Nazi.

    Moreover, your latest lie in this thread proves my statement. Every time you open your mouth, a lie comes out.

  458. 458
    General Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Well, he is an admitted agoraphobe.

    Is any thought that enters your empty head anything but a made up lie. “admitted agoraphobe” really? Where on earth did you get that? Because I prefer to live in small towns rather than big cities?

  459. 459
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Stuck: More like you haven’t left your apartment in months.
    Sitting there hitting F5 every couple seconds…

  460. 460
    General Stuck says:

    @calling all toasters:

    I am a liberal, Obama is a liberal. and you seem to be more of the liberal ideologue class. Note the difference.

    @oondioline:

    You are right, i will get off the grid and let the butthurt souls pour salve in the wounds. You all took quite a lickin’ today.

    And we will all get a good nights rest and do it all over again tomorrow. But you have to quit taking cheap shots, cause then I will have to return and answer them – deal?

  461. 461
    mclaren says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Not his apartment. General Crackpot Fake name lives in his mommy’s basement.

  462. 462
    General Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    More like you haven’t left your apartment in months. Sitting there hitting F5 every couple seconds…

    dude, you are on this blog and in more threads than I am these days. And doesn’t it get to you at all, lying with nearly every breath, I mean, have you not one shred of self respect?

    These sorts of attacks are just so pathetically lame, it is embarrassing, really.

  463. 463
    Triassic Sands says:

    @General Stuck:

    You really are priceless, Stuck. (Or is it worthless?) As always, you inflate your own importance. It’s apparent that for some reason you need to do that. I know you need attention — constant attention — but after this post, I expect to go back to generally ignoring you. I mean, it’s not like you have anything thoughtful to say.

    I’ve always been mystified by people who think that being annoying, irritating, obnoxious, or offensive is something worth doing. It’s common among adolescents, but there really is no excuse for someone older than a teenager. How empty your life must be to spend god knows how many hours a day on Balloon Juice with the mission of getting under people’s skin. Sad.

  464. 464
    mclaren says:

    @General Stuck:

    And yes, I would ban all the assholes…me as well…

    Comment is unnecessary.

  465. 465
    oondioline says:

    @General Stuck: Before you go, can you remind us how racist we are one more time?

    Like, for the road?

  466. 466
    mclaren says:

    @srv:

    This idea of installing filters is great. In fact, let everyone install a filter on everyone else. That way, no one will ever have to encounter an opinion or a fact that proves inconvenient. Everyone can drift off into their own little world of fantasy, and that will help the Democratic party come together to defeat the unified Republicans.

    (rolls eyes in disbelief)

  467. 467
    General Stuck says:

    @Triassic Sands:

    LOL, you might want to look in the mirror for that empty life. You were the one who initiated this lame exchange, and have kept it going with some hilarious high brow insults about how you hate reading my comments, but apparently can’t help yourself from continuing to do it. And the truly sad meme of claiming high ground by claiming your object of derision is on this blog too much, indicating a striking lack of self awareness that you are also on this blog at least to an equal degree, or, how could you make such a quantification/evaluation

    It’s apparent that for some reason you need to do that. I know you need attention—constant attention

    Again, hilarious, and zero self awareness being you are the one who responded to my comments first.

    I’m going to bed now, and count unicorns to fall asleep. And after you respond to this comment again, tell us once more how you have quit reading Stuck, after this time, again. Merry Christmas, you odd little duck.

  468. 468
    Shade Tail says:

    Wow. I’ve rarely seen such a large number of assholes who can’t read all in one place. So many WATBs who completely misunderstood Mr. Cole’s post (if they even read it at all). So many completely mindless shitheads who can’t stand anything that whiffs of being called out for the mindless vomit they flatter themselves to call political thinking.

    Are any of you even capable of seeing the difference between criticizing your beliefs and criticizing your actions? Are any of you even capable of understanding how your irrationally exaggerated hatred of Obama makes you look like a teabagger after a lobotomy?

    Reed (and Cole, for that matter) wasn’t calling you racist, he was calling you *privileged*. And you clearly are. You have this smug, self-absorbed idea that your way is *the* correct way to do things, and the complete inability to see why someone (such as Obama) could disagree. And you are completely oblivious to the possible consequences of your childish shrieking.

    Other dems (some of us white, many if not most minority) realize that we don’t have the luxury to be so immature as you lot are. We are accustomed to the reality that life isn’t fair and that you don’t always get what you want or need. And given their history, blacks and latinos *do* tend to understand this reality better than white folks.

    Of course, you can’t stand to have that reality shoved in your face, so rather than reevaluate your sacred cows, you start pissing and moaning about being called racist. Well, fuck. You know what? You *are* racist. The fact that you completely misinterpreted the posted article and reacted so defensively proves that.

    Is your racism driving your “criticism” (read: pointless and childish temper tantrums) of Obama? Don’t know, don’t care. You’re the ones who have to figure that out (not that you’ll bother; you’re too busy being self-righteous). What matters to me is that you and others like you are pushing us toward a cliff and refuse to even look in the direction you’re driving things.

    If you want to criticize Obama, go ahead. But first you’ll have to give up on the hot-headed bullshit that you’ve mistaken for legitimate criticism. Unless and until you do, you’ll keep being called out for it. Don’t like that? Tough shit, fucking deal with it.

  469. 469
    General Stuck says:

    @oondioline:

    Before you go, can you remind us how racist we are one more time? Like, for the road?

    No, you will just have to jone’s it till tomorrow.

  470. 470
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @Corner Stone:
    .
    .
    Uncle Clarence Thomas, I wish you’d tell us more about this condition.

    Corner, the condition is “genius”. President Obama is a genius, and a full-blown 11-dimensional political chess master. For example, take his daring coup against the banksters. He made those fat cats enjoy their $150 billion in bonuses far less than they would have before he interceded on behalf of the American People. I mean, did you hear those fuckers whining all the way to the bank? Ha ha, serves ’em right! Who else could possibly have pulled this off – and made it all look so effortless?
    .
    .

  471. 471
    SFAW says:

    I am a liberal,

    How nice for you.

    Obama is a liberal.

    Only when the Overton Window has shifted a lot more to the right. Or were you just attempting to be ironic?

    and you seem to be more of the liberal ideologue class. Note the difference.

    and you seem not to have the ability to think beyond your label du jour, apparently. “Liberal ideologue”? Why stop there? How about “Commie”? Or “death panel proponent”? Or some other equally ridiculous misnomer? Not that you actually understand what “liberal ideologue” means, of course.

    The Rethugs are top-flight at labeling persons they don’t like or are trying to tear down. Maybe they’ll ask you to join them – unless you’re too “liberal”.

  472. 472
    General Stuck says:

    @SFAW:

    I was responding to someone else who was assigning labels, moron.

  473. 473
    Andy K says:

    @Shade Tail:

    Where were you earlier? You could have ended this early if this had been comment #50.

    Aww, fuck, who am I kidding? There’s no pony in there.

  474. 474
    SFAW says:

    I was responding to someone else who was assigning labels, moron.

    No, SFB, you were responding to calling all toasters, who apparently had the temerity to use the word “liberal” without clearing it with you first. And since this whole f’ing thread – hell, Balloon Juice in general – has thrown around “progressive” and “liberal” as if the terms were going out of style, toasters is hardly assigning labels any more than anyone else.

    But consistency is hardly to be expected from a Head Big Cheese such as yourself, right? I mean, consistency is only for the little people, etc., etc.

    Weren’t you toddling off in your PJs for your beauty sleep or something? Maybe the Clue Fairy will leave a clue under your pillow.

  475. 475
    General Stuck says:

    @SFAW:

    has thrown around “progressive” and “liberal” as if the terms were going out of style, toasters is hardly assigning labels any more than anyone else.

    Then neither am I. Everyone uses labels. So What is the point to your hissy fit, anyways?

    That I’m a mouthy asshole? Well, boo fucking hoo.

    You are not the first to discover this.

    and the butthurt keeps pounding away. Get some sleep, the swelling should be down by morning.

  476. 476

    Bananas. Absolutely bananas.

  477. 477
    SFAW says:

    Then neither am I. Everyone uses labels. So What is the point to your hissy fit, anyways?

    I realize your self-awareness is right up there with a nematode, but you were the first one to take umbrage about labels. Yet another case of Rethug projection. Oh, wait, I forgot, you’re a “liberal”.

    and the butthurt keeps pounding away. Get some sleep, the swelling should be down by morning.

    You seem to have this fixation. Time for your next dose of Zyprexa! It might also help with your “I know you are, but what am I?” syndrome.

    And if you can’t come up with anything more intelligent (so to speak) than your last two comments, perhaps you should have yer Mommy write it for you, or perhaps one of the kids from Romper Room. Hell, I’d write it for you, but I’d need to have a lobotomy (or become, like you, a Republican) to get down to your level, and I’d rather not.

  478. 478
    oondioline says:

    This blog has gotten extremely shitty ever since John Cole discovered his extremely tender Vagina of Racial Sensitivity.

  479. 479
    zonk3 says:

    John sounds a lot like Taylor Marsh and TalkLeft during the ’08 campaign when they decided to support Obama and told anyone who supported Hillary or any other candidate during the primaries to fuck off or they will be banned. I frequently am comforted by the fact that I did not vote for the FRAUD that is “obama.” Never will.

    Too bad the man will go down as worse than Carter and an abject failure for the rest of his sorry life. He didn’t even bother to try. Hey, but he spent so much time on the golf course every SINGLE day of his presidency — at least he lowered his handicap while lowering his own taxes.

  480. 480
    SFAW says:

    zonk3 –

    Gee, thanks for sharing. Too bad you have no idea what you’re talking about. (Other than the Taylor Marsh thing. Didn’t go there in ’08, so I don’t know.)

  481. 481
  482. 482
    Jewish Steel says:

    @debit:

    The self selecting nature of the online community makes me try real hard to not stopper my ears to dissenting voices.

    But you are singing this sailor a siren’s song of pie.

  483. 483
    otmar says:

    I’ve read the post (but not the comments) on my mobile via RSS feed during the commute this morning.

    Then I found today’s Dilbert cartoon. Scot Adams must have been following this blog.

    :-)

  484. 484
    silentbeep says:

    @John Cole:

    This might be a time for a comment policy. Christ, we are only half way through this 4 year Obama term. I don’t know what your blog’s comment section is gonna be like a year from now, ’cause as it stands now, it’s barely readable.

  485. 485
  486. 486
    amk says:

    @zonk3: Wrong blog. dkos/freepersville that way =====>.

  487. 487
    Mrs. Polly says:

    @Angry Black Lady: Schnook is begging for some pixels to recognize his existence. Wwwwaarrmmm pixels..c’mere….can you make an “O” for me? Yesssssssss………”@,” can you get in front of my name?..Yessss……

  488. 488
    Mrs. Polly says:

    @otmar: That’s a riot, the good way! Thank you.

  489. 489
    Mike M says:

    Sorry but no, this BLOG has become the shit show fail parade. You keep pushing this unprovable premise that unless the whiny hippies start falling in line and stop bitching about Obama’s complete lack of negotiation skills they’re going to….I don’t know what exactly? Stay home and not vote? Go vote Republican? Its never specified, but we better shape up or else!

    If any of the black intellectuals you speak of can’t see that there have been some massive leadership failures on the part of this administration, I’d question their self designatation of “intellectual”. Whether or not you believe that we’re getting the best we could in this environment from this administration, few would be stupid enough not to admit that massive mistakes were being made.

    I personally am appalled at how we have to start every negotiation with the Republicans with massive concessions, only to turn around and give them everything THEY wanted. That healthcare plan we just passed was what the Republicans wanted in 1994. The tax cut plan we just passed was of their making as well. This is what we get for electing Democrats? And if you bring that up, because the president is black the African American community will rise up and rebel.

    Fuck that.

    I for one credit the black community with being smart enough to recognize that not everything this president is going to do is awesome just because he’s black. I also think if you explain your dissatisfaction intelligently rather than in an incendiary manner (like this stupid post) that they’ll see your point of view even if they don’t agree with it. Personally, if I were black I’d be insulted at what’s being implied here.

  490. 490
    agrippa says:

    @dogwood:

    I believe that you are correct in every thing that you wrote.

    And, these divisions have existed in the party have existed for a very long time.

    The Democratic politicians now have to back up and regroup and plan for 2012. This will take time to play out. If it is not worked out, the GOP will have a good election in 2012.

  491. 491
    sy2d says:

    What Cole forgets is that black, latino and asian progressives are just as angry with Obama’s as their white counterparts.

    If someone sells me a bill of goods, I don’t give a fuck what color their skin is.

    BTW:http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....g_you.html

  492. 492
    General Stuck says:

    @SFAW:

    “I know you are, but what am I?” syndrome.

    Witty troll. Why don’ts we ask the Clue Fairy?

  493. 493
    General Stuck says:

    @Angry Black Lady:

    Bananas. Absolutely bananas.

    It’s a Woody Allen thread

  494. 494
    SFAW says:

    Witty troll. Why don’ts we ask the Clue Fairy?

    It’s always sad when a once-mediocre mind (i.e. yours) descends into bathos.

    I guess I’ll have to stop picking on you, before you turn into a poor imitation of Erick Ericksdottir or Jonah Glodberg.

    I’m so ashamed of myself.

  495. 495
    General Stuck says:

    I’m so ashamed of myself.

    Don’t be. At least you make an effort at originality for flaming. The other idiots only bring the canned stuff.

  496. 496

    @Shade Tail:

    Are any of you even capable of understanding how your irrationally exaggerated hatred of Obama makes you look like a teabagger after a lobotomy?

    Specific examples, please.

  497. 497
    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony says:

    This post is dead on. I don’t visit the comments much anymore because I am so sick and tired of listening to the same bunch of endlessly repetitive, hypersensitive whiners. Go to back to KOS and No Quarter where you came from.

  498. 498
    DaBomb says:

    @sy2d: Wow are you really this obtuse? Do you realize Thelma is a financial consultant from CNBC, who always speaks of the President respectfully and has fully stated she would vote for him again.

    @Stan: What does the CBC disagreeing with Obama’s tax plan have to do with the level of vitrol aimed at this President? Did you even read the post?

  499. 499
    Nate says:

    Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.

    Umm, speaking as an unemployed white Progressive working to organize other unemployed people in the southside of Chicago, that’s some racist bull****. Hey, I can’t go around saying black people are lazy and like to eat fried chicken and spit watermelon seeds, the author shouldn’t go around saying that I’m an elitist and don’t know what it’s like to struggle in life just because I’m white. They’re both bigoted remarks that express a big disconnect with the real world.

  500. 500

    What Cole forgets is that black, latino and asian progressives are just as angry with Obama’s as their white counterparts.

    not according to the polls. and really? you’re basing your keen political analysis on that clip of Thelma Hart?

    my god, this comment thread is really disheartening.

  501. 501

    @Nate: did you read the full article?

    never mind, it doesn’t matter. you’ll find something else to be outraged about instead of pondering the point of the damn article.

    if you can’t understand how the two statements you made “black people are lazy and like to eat fried chicken” and “white people are elitist and don’t no struggle” are…

    oh forget it. i don’t care. i don’t have the time today.

  502. 502
    Glix says:

    I guess that big unity rally John Stewart had didn’t really sink in. It’s “first you go, then I go, then you go, then I go.”

    In legislative terms it means I put in something I want, then you put in something you want, then my turn, then your turn. The resulting legislation will have a bunch of stuff that each side wants and a bunch of stuff that each side could do without. The President promised an end to the bickering both on the campaign trail and again after the 2010 elections. The only way to achieve that is to allow the Republicans to have more than a token say in legislation.

  503. 503
    chris says:

    That sound you’re hearing is the ghost of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., throwing up. “Just wait.” What a ghastly insult to him and the entire black community this piece is. Shame on you, John, for endorsing it. Just horrible.

Comments are closed.