Progressive Racism, Careerism and Delusion

Melissa Harris-Perry wrote a fantastic column in The Nation this week in which she makes a perfectly rational argument for the existence of "white progressive racism." Here's the quote of the week:

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.

(I encourage you to bookmark HumanityCritic's TwitLonger link as index for the debate that ensued.)

There's so much to say about this topic, it's difficult to know where to begin. Personally, I've been baffled by the disconnect between the president's record and the obstructions in his path including conservadems and the generally slow legislative process, and how a certain faction of progressives fail to recognize these realities along with the obvious liberalism of many of the goals he's sought and achieved.

The only explanations I can come up with are: 1) racism, 2) careerism and 3) delusion.

The irrationality and intellectual dishonesty of this faction is what's leading me to draw these conclusions.

Why have they revised recent history? In his response to Harris-Perry's article, John Aravosis wrote that the president watered down the stimulus in order to appease the Republicans. Not entirely true. Same goes for healthcare. The president had to overcome conservadem opposition as well as Republican opposition. Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln and the rest were just as obstructionist as the Republicans. Yes, the stimulus wasn't big enough, but it was still historically gigantic, and it contained the largest middle class tax cut in history. This is hardly a betrayal. It's an achievement in a difficult landscape. Aravosis also writes that progressives supported the Obama campaign. Oh really? I recall progressives supporting the Edwards campaign (smart!) and then becoming deeply divided between Clinton and Obama, then landing on ambivalence towards the Obama campaign once he became the presumptive nominee. Read Eric Boehlert's book "Bloggers on the Bus" for some actual history, John. David Sirota, meanwhile, responding to Harris-Perry, accused the president of military "adverturism" in Libya -- conflating Libya with Iraq and Afghanistan -- even though we simply participated in a NATO mission and never invaded or occupied Libya. This is purely dishonest of Sirota (shocker) for the sake of rousing progressive anger and continuing the thoroughly disproved "just like Bush" meme.

Why have they diminished the president's record? Sirota wrote about "the president's failure to pursue his campaign promises." According to Politifact, the president has kept 147 of his promises in just under three years, and broken 47. In other words, he's batting around .750. In baseball, a .300 average is Hall of Fame worthy. Additionally, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, try to name a single president in American history who kept all of his promises and with whom you agree on every policy. I can't think of a single one. To impose a different standard on this president seems dubiously motivated -- a key point in Harris-Perry's column.

Why do they ignore (or damn-by-faint-praise) the liberalism of the president's achievements? Aravosis compared Clinton's record to President Obama's record on LGBT issues and seems to have decided that because Clinton appointed a handful of gay people to various departments, this is somehow comparable to President Obama overturning an anti-gay law that Clinton supported. Aravosis also brushes off Clinton's passage of DOMA. All of this was prefaced by the all-too-familiar criticism that the president didn't move fast enough on gay issues. This is not unlike criticizing Jonas Salk for not ending Polio fast enough. Beyond the overturning of a major anti-gay law, the president's record shows a strong tendency toward liberalism/progressivism. Do I need to run through the list? Stem cell research; the ending of the Iraq war; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; credit card reform; huge tax credits that will reduce middle class health insurance premiums by around $10,000/year; expanded SCHIP; extended federal benefits to partners of same-sex workers; appointed the first Latina Supreme Court Justice; multiple pitches in support of liberalism and the role of government -- most recently in his American Jobs address... Should I go on? Sirota? Aravosis?

Yes, the president has done some things that are frustrating. But should those items negate the preponderance of evidence in favor of his record? The problem with progressive discontentment is that the usual suspects are all-too-eager to throw the president (and with him the continuation of liberal-leaning policies) overboard because of those several mistakes.

I understand the importance of accountability. But in the process of holding a similarly-minded leader accountable, we shouldn't be counterproductive to the broader movement. President Obama, regardless of what you think, is moving the window leftward. Period. There's a way to coax him in this direction and there's a way to convince him that it's not worth it and to consequently force him to fall back to politically safer high ground. Smart accountability is the solution. Promote the good things and criticize the bad by constructing rational counter-arguments. Rachel Maddow is a solid illustration of the "smart accountability" ideal. Conversely, non-stop shouting only tends to disintegrate into white-noise and gibberish.

Instead, progressives like Sirota, Aravosis, Greenwald and Hamsher, while purporting to hold the president accountable, are simply breeding disillusionment and anger among a crowd that's already predisposed to emo behavior. Instead of making a killer pitch for continued liberal policies, these progressives simply shout at the administration while injecting dishonesty into the discourse. For better or worse, these people have large audiences and their words have an impact -- especially in an increasingly connected online world. Their dishonesty rubs off and their anger is contagious.

But what's truly motivating them? I think in some cases it's racism, yes. See Harris-Perry's "salvific" remarks above. In her negative response to Harris-Perry, Joan Walsh even goes off in the first couple of paragraphs about her "black friend." Odd. But I'll let Harris-Perry make this argument -- she's better at it.

Racism aside, many of these progressives have made a conscious decision to tap into a certain angry demographic for the sake of traffic and readership-building. When the president was elected, traffic on liberal blogs dropped off, partly because there wasn't anything tangible for liberals to complain about -- no more Bush to push around anymore. So these writers tapped into the divisions that arose during the 2008 Democratic primary. Those divisions ran very, very deep. And finally, there's a giant heap of delusion in the mix. Many of these progressives clearly haven't read the president's books. His positions and the degree of his liberalism, along with the backstory of his pragmatism, are outlined in easy-to-read type, and neither of his blockbuster best-sellers are difficult to find. (Readers of his books will also learn that nothing in this president's past indicates that he responds well to inchoate shouting and anger. Nothing.) Nevertheless, many progressives have unfairly superimposed their own politics onto the president. I'm not sure why, but then, when the president doesn't follow through with your agenda, he's suddenly a disappointment.

So I encourage you to try to see the president's record in a realistic way. Decide for yourself if 147 promises kept is solid enough for you. Decide for yourself whether his accomplishments are "liberal enough," given the precedent of the Bush years, the right-leaning position of the Overton window and the 30 year dominance of Reaganomics. And finally, think about the impact of unfair, dishonest and ultimately self-defeating behavior.

  • As a meta-comment, I think it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the number of “Obama good” and “Obama is a disappointment” posts and see how many of each are personal attacks and insults against other posters. Then we can see which side is thinking and writing more rationally on the issue.

    • Scopedog

      Wouldn’t mind seeing this either.

  • MarshallLucky

    “Nevertheless, many progressives have unfairly superimposed their own politics onto the president. I’m not sure why, but then, when the president doesn’t follow through with your agenda, he’s suddenly a disappointment.”

    That is the most bizarre thing I’ve read in some time.

    • Scopedog

      Well….Chez said something similar on a recent episode of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show.

      And to be honest, it is pretty much on the ball. A lot of the progressive anger towards the President is based on this, but it also shows that they do not understand how the political process works. Whether it is willful or innocent ignorance, they seem to have forgotten the separation of powers, the role of Congress in crafting laws, and that the President did not have a “supermajority”, and plus, they only looked at the surface details, never what was underneath (see, for instance, the Bush tax cuts deal and the recent debt ceiling deal).

      It also doesn’t help when some progressive utter that “elections don’t matter.” Really? So why is the GOP trying to take away voting rights from millions of Americans, many of them minorities?

      Finally, the claim that some progressives make that President Obama is really a closet Republican or that he has “right-wing policies” (so says David Sirota) falls to bits when one thinks about it….if he were a GOP dude….wouldn’t the GOP be bending over backwards to give him EVERYTHING he wanted?

      The GOP has been, instead, blocking bills the President wants passed and has made it clear that they intend to stall whatever he wants to make him a one-term President.

      Just saying that what you quoted isn’t bizarre at all….it’s actually the cold, blunt truth.

  • MarshallLucky

    Maddow had some interesting things to say about the recent assassination and its legality.

  • I hope he does lose. He should be impeached for ordering the murder of an American citizen without due process. Even worse than torture. Not selling my soul and integrity just so the president is a Democrat.

    • Gah. You really are STUPID. Literally.

      • Really good argument you have there.

        • Didn’t intend it to be an argument, just a simple statement of FACT.

          • Yeah, you have some serious growing up to do.

          • Scopedog

            So do you, James. So do you.

    • incredulous72

      You have no integrity.

      • Okay mind reader. What ever you say.

  • Your thoughts don’t hold much weight.

  • Yes, poor Barrack. Some people who voted for him actually expected him to be a good president. How unfair of them.

    • Alex0001

      Congrats, you’ve gone from dissenting opinion, to sanctimonious, pretentious liberal sterotype to troll all in one day.

      • You left out one – a voter who won’t be pulling the lever for Obama again.

        • ranger11

          Good! Ratfucking Nixonian asshole.

          • Why are you all so foul mouthed at this blog? Seriously, that’s all you got?

          • ranger11

            Okay, Karl Rove.

  • You’re response is full of name calling and profanity. Sounds like a tantrum.

    • incredulous72

      Oooooooh! Snark! Because you have no point to make!

      GOT IT!!!

  • Yes, poor Barrack. Some people who voted for him actually expected him to be a good president. How unfair of them.

    • Idiot. Can’t even be bothered to spell his name correctly or to call him “President Obama”.

      I have long thought that Firebaggers were just another side to the right wing coin.

    • Scopedog

      Well, yeah, he has been a good President.

      Has he been perfect? No.

      But lemme ask you this….would a President McCain/VP Palin been better for you? And how about a President Perry or Romney in 2013? Think you would’ve gotten a lot of progressive legislation passed?

      If you say, “Yes”, then please, go have a drink. A big one. Because you just stepped into the damned Twilight Zone.

  • I got my rant on below, to James H, but I left out one thing.

    To all the Firebagger dolts on site:

    If Pres. Obama loses in 2012, we will blame YOU. ALL of you involved in the clusterfuck that is known as Firebaggery.

    We will blame YOU when and if Pres. Rick Perry is sworn in. We will blame YOU when he turns this country in to something unrecognizable and we’re all on no-fly lists.

    Think about that. Consider the consequences.

    • MarshallLucky

      How chilling.

  • tnlib

    Attn Little Australia, Hames H., and all the other race deniers and Obama haters:

    Following are some wise words written by a southern attorney who just happens to be black, articulate and highly intelligent.

    “…Perry raises the question as to why so much vitriol is directed towards Obama on this very personal level when in comparison with Bill Clinton, he has accomplished as much and in many cases more than Clinton. I recall when Clinton signed DADT into law; he didn’t get nearly the attacks from the left for signing the bigoted law as Obama has received for not fighting for an anti-discrimination provision in the bill repealing the law.

    Race informs all aspects of life in this country. To pretend that it doesn’t is naive and unrealistic. Interestingly, I’ve seen this same article shared by many of my black Facebook friends. Those who have shared it have found it credible. This doesn’t mean that black people are always right; however, it does reflect a difference in perspectives along racial lines. The question to ask yourself is do you use these differences to engage in honest dialogue or do you shut down into a defensive posture in which you deny that there is anything to be discussed? I truly appreciate those of you who have elected the first option. I have found your perspectives affirming and comforting. It is through such honest exchange that we all learn and grow.”


    And here are some others attacking Salon for their attacks on Harris-Perry. I particularly like this one from Race Review:


    From Momocrats on Salon comparing Harris-Perry to Bachmann and the KKK:


    And one more from Smarty Pants:


    I don’t really have any hope that you’ll read any of these as you obviously don’t want facts to stand in your way. You would rather engage in vitriol, invectives and half truths without substantiation than in reality.

    • Right – no one could possibly be sincerely disappointed in this president. No one could possibly be honestly disturbed by his unilateral decision on Libya and his single handed decisions on who and who is not a terrorist and needs executing without due process. Nobody could possibly despise his decisions to guarantee $8.5 billion dollars in new nuclear power plant loans or his plan to open part of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to oil drilling or his apparent support for the Keystone Pipeline or his abandonment of long fought over EPA air quality controls. Nobody is genuinely concerned with his statement that he is “evolving” on same sex marriage. Nobody is really disappointed that his most oft repeated campaign promise to rescind the Bush ear tax cut on those above $250k was squandered and he didn’t even get a signed in blood agreement that the debt ceiling would not be held hostage Here’s link to the press conference where he said he simply trusted Boehner to raise it – http://url2it.com/htrs. Nobody cares about the toothless Wall Street Reform Bill he signed into law while letting the crooks run free and continue their state sanctioned thievery – Nobody is genuinely disillusioned that he didn’t even allow single payer advocates a seat at the table. Nobody honestly questions his cabinet choices of Geithner and Summers. Nobody had any legitimate cause to shake their head when he invited Rick Warren to preach at his inauguration. Naw, they’re all just racists or looking to advance their careers – because of course everyone who is complaining about this president is white and privileged and has a big media megaphone and is simply divorced from reality. Nobody could possibly be a real, everyday, average liberal minded citizen.

      • Horseshit.

        Some of us have some disappointments, while at the same time recognizing that regardless of personal grievances, this President, President Barack Obama, is still the MOST PROGRESSIVE president this country has had in DECADES.

        The difference between us and you (and your fellow assholes) is twofold.

        1. We never expected the Pres to be our Personal Magic Negro, and thus achieve all of our long held dreams, many of which were never fucking realistic to begin with anyway.
        We accepted him for the pragmatic, good-hearted, highly intelligent human being that he is; i.e., flawed, just like US and the rest of humanity.

        2. We didn’t harbor a picture of the black man as some “super fly gangsta ninja” guy who would see things our way, and thus fix everything gone wrong in this country over the past 30 years, and do it in 4-8 1-2 short years.
        Those of you who feel betrayed did see him as exactly that. And the reason you saw him as some stupid caricature is either pure stupidity or some inherent racism.
        Either way, you lose. Either way, you’re fucking idiots.

        ENOUGH OF THIS CLUSTERFUCK!! Stupid fucking firebagging morons. GO cry to glenn or janey………while they both laugh at your asses all the way to the bank.

        EDITED to reflect a far more accurate timeline.

        • KanaW

          Agreed, Nicole, with one caveat: they didn’t want him to fix everything gone wrong over 30 years within 4-8 years, they wanted it fixed within 2 years.

          • Those things I mentioned are part of the list of things he’s “done”over the past three years – not things he hasn’t gotten to yet. Those are all in the Obama record book of failure. Who knows what other disastrous legislative booby traps he’ll manage to spring on us should he regrettably get another 4 year shot at it?

      • James H, you are disappointed, in some cases, over things you have misperceived or misunderstood. The US has a treaty with the UN to support peacekeeping missions; Obama honored that treaty by committing air support in Libya only after the UN authorized it to prevent Gadaffy from slaughtering his own people in Benghazi, which he had threatened to do. It wasn’t unilateral or dictatorial on Obama’s part.

        Both Bin Laden and Al-Awlaki were openly confessed terrorists, and it would have cost American lives to arrest them and bring them to justice. While the threat from Al-Qaeda may have been exaggerated by the Bushies for their own ends, there is no doubt they are committed to killing Americans. It would be nice, in the perfect world, to put Al-Awlaki on trial, if it was possible to arrest him. Since it wasn’t, but we knew where he was, would you seriously advise just letting him go on planning attacks on the US, and would you now be criticizing Obama for not taking action if one of those attacks resulted in a friend or family member of yours being killed or, God forbid, another 9/11?

        Many of the things you mentioned regarding energy and the environment have not yet happened or were part of a compromise to also pass green energy legislation. I guess you want a king who can simply order such things by fiat, but, for now, it has to go through Congress. If you’re disapppointed, it’s only because you don’t understand how our system of government works.

        The Bush tax cuts for the rich expire this year. Yes, Obama and the Dems compromised with the GOP in 2010 to extend them in order to end DADT and continue unemployment benefits for millions of desperate people. I guess you missed that part.

        Whatever Obama’s personal views on same-sex marriage, he has steadfastly supported civil unions for gay people. That is all he can do as president; he cannot order that religions marry same-sex people without violating the First Amendment.

        Obama didn’t pass the Wall Street reforms, nor is he responsible for single payer not being in the health care reform bill. That would be Harry Reid and the Senate, as the House, under the Dems, passed a health care bill with single payer that the Senate stripped out. Again, you are blaming Obama because you apparently don’t understand how our system works.

        I don’t know why he chose Geithner and Summers, but perhaps he wanted people who knew where the ‘bodies were buried.’ He also appointed such liberals as Elizabeth Warren, Austan Goolsbee and Jared Bernstein as White House economic advisers. Obama’s an Abraham Lincoln buff, and may be trying to emulate his presidential hero in appointing people with differing opinions. Of course, you may believe Lincoln was a terrible president who accomplished little, in which case you have a point with which few historians would agree.

        You don’t understand politics; the appearance with Warren was to reassure low-info white voters that he was not a secret Muslim nor a crazed Black Liberation Theologist type as the media at the time was trying to portray him. Obama is a savvy politician which some on the left think is unforgivable; they’d rather stick with someone like Nader who doesn’t have a chance of winning, and therefore can never change anything, than support someone trying to win and do something. They are ‘Beautiful Losers’ who enjoy sitting back and congratulating themselves on what fine human beings they are while the country goes down the drain with the Republicans. Ask the Weimar Republic liberals endlessly fighting with each other while Hitler rose to power — that approach inevitably ends in tragedy.

        I’m not accusing you of being a racist, just someone who is woefully misinformed and buys into right-wing talking points that are designed to lessen Obama’s standing with progressives. Read up on what Frank Luntz and his ilk do for a living; the points you’re making are part and parcel of their propaganda campaign against Obama and it will intensify as the 2012 election draws nearer. It’s right out of the Rove playbook, but it goes back centuries: ‘Divide and conquer.’ It’s the only way the GOP can win in 2012, and the way they prevailed in 2010. Whatever complaints you have about Obama, multiply them by a thousand if the Republicans control the federal government in 2013.

        • Scopedog

          “I’m not accusing you of being a racist, just someone who is woefully misinformed and buys into right-wing talking points that are designed to lessen Obama’s standing with progressives.”

          That seems to be the case for many of President Obama’s “progressive” critics.

          I do not mind honest, constructive criticism of the President. However, I do not like the half-truths and outright distortions (like say, on the Bush tax cuts and Gitmo, for instance) that have been batted around on blogs such as FDL and Smirking Chimp.

  • incredulous72

    Until WE begin . . . BEGIN, to deal with racism in depth, in detail and on purpose instead of as an afterthought (post-racial America; what a hunk of shit that is), there will be no way for us to begin the elimination of it from our cultural, social, economic and political discourse in this country. It is also a wedge; if you have groups of people and cultures thinking about the differences between them instead of the similarities, then they cannot unify to confront and solve the bigger and more primary issue . . . CLASSISM.

    Is there racism within the Democratic party? YES. Are those that have gripes with President Obama racists? Maybe. I tend to look at what people say their gripes are with President Obama and from what I can see, most people that take issue with our President are from a very privileged class that are used to getting their way. They haven’t had to struggle or really put in real dues to accomplish the position they have in their lives at the moment. They may not be Hilton/Gates/Buffett rich, but they have not been poor, or simply working class. They are used to getting what they want in very short effort and order. So the fact that President Obama has not solved in 3 years all of the problems that took anywhere from 8 to 12 years to construct, is disappointing to these folks. He was supposed to get the job done in a year, year and half tops. Unrealistic? Abso-freakin’-lutely. But when has reality ever been a basis from which these individuals operate?

    Now, when certain individuals start yelling and screaming about what President Obama has or has not done, and then proceed to the name-calling and disrespect, THAT is when I begin to take a second look and think there is more to this than just their unrealistic expectations. Yeah, you can definitely say that they are immature, and throwing a hissy fit, and that the name calling is par the course in a temper tantrum, BUT IT IS WHAT THEY SAY DURING THE TANTRUM that is telling. Hamsher’s statement about African-Americans being stupid (or something to that effect; what she said was downright disrespectful) because of our “allegiance” to the President; the constant references about “Obamabots” to describe those that support this administration; the “I voted for the black guy” remarks by Moore and Maher, like once he was inaugurated he was going to turn into Shaft or some caricature of Samuel L. Jackson and start kickin’ people’s asses that didn’t co-sign on everything he did or said; THE CONSTANT DISRESPECT OF A PRESIDENT which I have never seen in my damn near 40 years on this planet, all of this is key to whether or not part of this is racially motivated.

    Do I think that race is the primary issue? No; I believe it is a layering of various issues. But is race a key component? In the words of our illustrious bubblehead Sarah Palin, “YOU BETCHA!”

    • Well f-king said, incred!

    • Your post is filled with name calling, invectives and opinion.

      • And you’re a fucking crybaby asshole.

      • incredulous72

        As examples. And your point is?

  • RobM

    I do look at the President’s accomplishments realistically. On foreign policy they are fantastic. On domestic policy they are poor. hey are not poor in and of themselves. They are poor because they do not put any money into anybodies pockets on a large scale, they coddle the financial institutions whom have done everything possible to thwart his attempts to help homeowners and lastly w/ the state of the ecnonomy none of them are truly effective. Then there is the dropkick to the curb of Shirley Sherrod over information that should have drawn the SEOD the minute it was heard considering the source. An act of cowardice I’ll never forget. so all in all they represent a faux liberalism.

    • On domestic policy they are poor. hey are not poor in and of themselves. They are poor because they do not put any money into anybodies pockets on a large scale,

      I would ask anybody that either had a job saved at GM or has since been hired whether or not money has been put in their pockets due to some action by the Obama administration. I would also ask the thousands of teachers, firefighters and policemen if their pockets have benefited from any domestic policy of this administration.

      • RobM

        On the whole the population has not benefitted from the stimulus. In the first year, those w/ state and local governments jobs did benefit. In the second year the state and local governments executed massive cutbacks to those workers. Only the autoworkers and those related industries have seen continual employment. Thus the larger body of unemployed have not benefited from the economic policies of the President. You also seemed to have missed the fact I know the use of TARP funds to provide financing for GM and Chrysler was the best thing the President has done.

  • Your rant is empty and so is Ms Harris’ article. Sighting Obama’s legislative record conjures Macbeth “.. a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and furry, signifying nothing.” And Shakespeare comes to the rescue to describe the cause of the elevated disappointment “Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds”

    • The_Dork_Knight

      James speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them; and when you have them, they are not worth the search.


      • ABL


      • Like a villaine with a smiling cheek a goodly apple rotten at the heart.

      • Scopedog

        Or he just pulled it out of his ass.

        Honestly, I’ve pretty much had it with jerkoffs like that guy. I apologize for my use of strong language, but after nearly three years of their constant shit throwing (while not even casting an eye at the GOP) and with using flat out lies and untruths, they can honestly go fuck themselves.

        • But ’tis a common proof
          That lowliness is young ambition’s ladder,
          Whereto the climber upward turns his face;
          But when he once attains the upmost round,
          He then unto the ladder turns his back,
          Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
          By which he did ascend.

  • Scopedog


    No, it isn’t. Find something with more meat next time, okay boss?

    • African-American support has dropped drastically too! (The fact that Harris-Perry didn’t even allude to that – bizarre. How could you not when making an honest agreement about motives of drop in white support?) How does that not severely weaken her argument? Honestly – I’m listening, boss. I’ll concede if you show me how it doesn’t.

      And the rest of Robin’s article, and the updates, are worth the read too.

      • ABL

        Support is at 87%. feel free to stop lying now.

        Pumpkin, you are protesting waaaaay too much. It’s amusing.

        • ABL, there is no lie here. The figure is from a WaPo poll. If you want to argue that a drop from very favorable to favorable doesn’t mean anything, fine, but you are being dishonest calling what I wrote and linked a lie.

          • ABL

            as I said, you are protesting too much. far too much talk, far too little listening, all in an effort to disprove a point with which you and so many others are deeply uncomfortable.

          • ABL gives advice on listening. Wow. It’s actually my main critique of you, ABL. (And we’ve encountered each other on Twitter and at Balloon Juice, just in case you weren’t aware of that.) You obviously have good goals and a respectable mission, if it’s called that, but your style is such a turn off, largely because you don’t converse, you shout people down and degrade your points by yelling things like “EMOPROG”! (I feel the same way about that as I do about people saying “OBOT!” You’ve lost your argument when you go there.) And that’s not even inherently bad – if you were doing standup it would work, but you *pretend* to be conversing. That’s where it all falls down.

            Here’s something from Melissa Harris-Perry’s Twitter feed I could not ever picture coming from you.

            “I hope they are reading the many smart critiques of the piece too. Some have great, valid points.”

          • YOU should only hope to be as smart and tolerant as ABL.

            You are a crybaby moron who makes up and cherry picks facts to make your crybaby points.

            Get over yourself.

    • Not to mention, Robin makes an even better point: Harris-Perry’s article is based, most basically, on something that hasn’t happened yet – the 2012 election. When Obama wins, and with high support from white liberal voters, we can expect a mea culpa article from Harris-Perry (and Bob Cesca), right?

    • And:

      “What could be different? Perhaps the state of the economy, particularly the unemployment numbers (which appear nowhere in Harris-Perry’s piece), has something to do with it?”

      You cannot ignore this if you want to talk honestly about Harris-Perry’s piece.

    • ANd this from Harris-Perry is just bizarro world:

      “Today, America’s continuing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan provoke anger, but while Clinton reduced defense spending, covert military operations were standard practice during his administration.”

      You need me to even start on that one?

  • Corey Robin’s article is simply devastating: http://coreyrobin.com/2011/09/23/melissa-harris-perry-psychologist-to-the-stars/

    This is just a piece, and uses facts, rather than Harris-Perry’s fantasies:

    “Because here’s what we do know about liberal support for Obama. As of August 1, according to this Gallup poll, 83 percent of liberal Democrats were supporting him. Among liberals (as opposed to liberal Democrats), the numbers throughout the first half of the summer mostly hovered in the upper 70s. Then by the end of August, those numbers began inching down to 68 percent. But guess what? They also began falling among African Americans. In fact, according to this September Washington Post story, “Five months ago, 83 percent of African Americans held ‘strongly favorable’ views of Obama, but in a new Washington Post-ABC news poll that number has dropped to 58 percent.” That’s why, according to this piece, Obama has made special outreach efforts to blacks: he’s worried about their dwindling support. But as the Post also goes onto explain, “That drop is similar to slipping support for Obama among all groups.”

    So why is Obama’s support declining among all groups? And why didn’t it with Clinton in 1996? Hmm.”

    • And yet, you don’t mention that that 58% “drop” was only a drop to “FAVORABLE” from “highly favorable”.

      You are full of shit, Australia, as demonstrated with each post that you make here.

      • It’s a quote of a quote! And she provided a link to it! Are you TRYING to be dishonest? And how is that drop, even just to “favorable,” not significant in regards to Harris-Perry’s point? How could she possibly ignore it when making her argument?

      • ABL

        Anyone who had to post lies to make a point is not worth consideration. I find that those who waltz in at the end of a thread and dump multiple brain-dead comments are also not worthy of consideration.

        AA support is solid at 87%. How desperate are these folks to bleed black support from Obama or to dampen AA enthusiasm by lying about drastic reduction in support?

        It’s transparent and it’s stupid.

        • Hilarious. I first posted here yesterday, before you, and came back to see new comments.

          Why do you make it so easy?

          • ABL

            aaaaand you miss the plot again.


        • But remember, Herman Cain hovers, warning black people they are being ‘brainwashed’ by Obama and the Democrats. This from a guy who can’t see racism in the Republican Party. Perhaps some emoprog blogger on the left will take up Cain’s clarion call and offer of free pizza for a month.

    • ranger11

      Who the fuck is Corey Robin?! Johnny Bigcock says Obama is gonna be re-elected by 5 points. Who should I trust?!

  • Greenwald asks the right question today, regarding the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki: “how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?”

    But he’s just a careerist. Or a racist. Or careerist. Or delusional.

    • Scopedog

      No, he’s just an asshole.

    • And you’re a moron if you really believe the crap that Greenwald peddles.

  • TippersDad

    I guess it’s called a “concensus” when you’ve deleted and blocked all who don’t post statements in absolute agreement.

    In the real world, when you only accept comments or posters in accord with strict pro-Obama guidelines, it’s called “cooking the books”. And you end up with only half of the truth.

    How many posters and comments has Bob’s worker bees banished from the blog today?

    I think this site is as racist as any – it’s Obaman-bot only!

    • Poor Tipper. I’m feeling really sad for him/her.

    • Had you bothered to read this thread, you might have noticed a rather wide disparity in opinions, and as you can also see, those who disagreed were not banned.
      If you were banned, it’s likely that you posted something particularly offensive.

      • Tipper’sDad is wrong, I think, but I was for a long time the only person here in disagreement. Most commenters were so far up Cesca’s ass it was embarrassing.

        • So if we agree with Bob’s POV, we’re “far up his ass”?

          I hardly think so.

          • No, not if you agree. If you do this:

            “Your analysis is BRILLIANT and spot on. THANK YOU.”

            “Wow, Bob, freaking AWESOME post!!!!”

            “Wow Bob u r on fire this week. Outstanding post!”

            But hey. It’s a small point, so forget it.

          • Yeah, I will definitely forget it since it’s based on bullshit.

  • As to the concern of progressive racism, let me address it by climbing into my time machine…

    Early November, 2008:
    I’m at the ballot box, and I want a president who will:

    1) Keep Guantanimo open
    2) Continue indefinite detentions
    3) Work towards assassinating terror suspects without trial or charges
    4) Not prosecute anyone for torture
    5) Renew the onerous provisions of the Patriot Act
    6) Increase our troop strength in Afghanistan
    7) Not prosecute anyone for Wall Street fraud
    8) Extend the Bush tax cuts
    9) Expand offshore drilling in the arctic
    10) Make no effort to end taxpayer subsidies to the most profitable corporations on the planet

    So, if that is what I want the next president of the United States to do, who should I have voted for? Obama or the other guy? Phrase your answer in terms of me being a progressive racist.*

    *Yeah, I know the president is not alone in all of the above. Our Republican friends have a lot to do with it, but we traditionally blame the president for the end results. Rick Janes makes some excellent points, but I’m viewing it in terms of what the President has been willing to go to the mat on, and spend political capital to get done, especially when looking at his campaign promises.

    • GregP, since you mentioned my name, –and thanks for the compliment — I feel like I should reply to your list in some detail.

      1) Obama tried to close Gitmo and ran into a GOP shitstorm. He had no place to transfer the Gitmo prisoners in the US, even though a town in Illinois with an empty prison was willing to take them; the GOP blocked that deal, as well as trying them in open court in New York.

      2) This should be remedied, but it’s not entirely up to Obama.

      3) This practice should also end but what if they have caught a terrorist and they can’t arrest him because he’s shooting at them? Should they just give up and walk away or is lethal force permissible?

      4) Obama, as president, doesn’t prosecute anyone for anything. That’s the job of the Attorney General, Eric Holder. If Obama ordered Holder to prosecute torturers on pain of being dismissed, wouldn’t you then criticize him for abusing his power, as Nixon did? Aside from that, both Bush and Cheney insulated themselves from prosecution by saying they were relying on the best advice from their lawyers, and intelligence and military experts. (Yes, we know they were hand-picked.) I wouldn’t mind seeing John Yoo or Jay Bybee perp walked, but that’s not the kind of prosecutions you mean — you want the big dogs like Junior, Dick and Rummy. I’m with you, but consider this: in a trial, the Unholy Three could simply testify that they did not think what they were ordering was torture based upon the advice of counsel. Then you have the almost-impossible task of proving they are lying when they say that. In the meantime, the govt is gridlocked, nothing getting done, while the ‘trial of the century’ goes on. That means the economy continues to slide and Americans go without jobs. Would that serve justice?

      5) Uh, Obama didn’t renew the Patriot Act — Congress did that.

      6) As Obama promised to do in 2008. One of the reasons I’ve heard for keeping ground troops in Afghanistan has to do with the Pakistani nukes. If a zealous far-right religiously-insane govt should come into power in Pakistan those nukes would fall into their hands. (Sure, the generals have promised to protect the weapons, but can we trust them after they lied about Bin Laden?) Imagine the nightmare scenario if those nukes were launched against India, Israel or other parts of the Middle East? Our troops are next door in Pakistan to quickly secure the nukes from the crazies, without having to be carted from halfway around the world. Of course, perhaps some would prefer a nuclear conflagration over there. Nothing, in this context, is as simple as it seems on the surface.

      7) Again, this is up to the AG, not Obama — Holder has to make the case and much of what Wall Street has done was made legal by the Bush GOP.

      8) The reasons for extending the Bush tax cuts have already been covered in this thread.

      9) The last I checked, this had not been finalized.

      10) You haven’t read the latest news — Obama is in the process of trying to do just that.

      Dealing with all of these issues, and other important issues, is complicated by the fact that Obama faces the most obstructionist Republican Party in memory, the Teabagger morons in the House, and a good number of retrograde idiots and cowards in his own party, as well as five members of the Supreme Court who are reactionary rightists. Also keep in mind Obama is trying to reverse eight years of the worst president in history — it might take more than 33 months, or even four years.

      • ABL

        I swear there is a script somewhere that these emos use and dump in blog comment sections. It is always the same damn thing.

        So annoying.

      • Rick, an excellent response and entirely accurate as best I can tell, but it misses my point. If the end result of those ten points (or most of them) is the same under Obama as it would have been under McCain, then the criticism of the president stands on its functional merits. I could have voted for either candidate and gotten the same result. We voted for him for “change”, not “more of the same with a D instead of an R”.

        If no Democratic president, period, could overcome the obstacles you mentioned (and I like the phrase “retrograde idiots and cowards”), then our representative system of government has failed. The Republicans win and we just are a one-party state that occasionally hits the “pause” button on conservative policy-making. That’s another discussion entirely.

        However, if a Democratic president could overcome these obstacles, by arm-twisting, bully pulpit appeals to the public, deal-making, using the veto pen, appointing an AG who will actually uphold the law, or whatever, then it is clear that Obama is not that president.

        I and a lot of others are disappointed, and it has nothing to do with race. At least from the progressive side. We may respectfully disagree on Obama’s performance, but I think Harris-Perry’s assessment of the reason for that disagreement is way off.

        • So those are the only ten issues to consider? That’s all? If you can only manage a short list of 10 in your head, then I think I’d prefer you not to vote at all. Disqualified for short attention span.

        • incredulous72

          Actually, there can be no comparison between President Obama and McCain. If you think that a President McCain would have done the same things that President Obama has done, that is a tell-tale sign that you don’t understand what’s at stake between the parties and and the obvious differences that exist between them.

        • Greg, if you’d like to know what this country would be like under a President McCain, I refer to what he said during his campaign for reelection to the senate in 2010. He would be wasting billions on a ‘wall’ with Mexico to keep immigrants out, and more private prisons to hold the ones who are here; he would have let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt and a million more Americans would be out of work; he would have stopped all funding for green energy projects; he would have extended AZ’s onerous SB1070 racial profiling law to the entire country; he would have expanded the war in Iraq and invaded Pakistan; he would have helped clamp down on the protests in Egypt and Tunisia and worked to keep the dictators in power there; he would have trashed the economy to Great Depression-era levels, as he would not have proposed any stimulus spending; he would have ‘reformed’ Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare to Paul Ryan’s liking; he would not have passed any health care bill of any kind, as he thinks the present system ‘works’ just fine; he would have completely deregulated the financial markets and corporations, as well as lower corporate taxes, assuring our total economic collapse; he would have started a war with Iran; he would have appointed two extremely far-right Supreme Court justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia; he would have scaled back women’s rights; he would have ended unmployment benefits, cut spending on education, and kept DADT in place. I could go on, but I think you get the point: if you’re disappointed with Obama, you’d be writhing in agony under a McCain presidency. Oh, and one more thing: imagine if the pressures of the presidency caused McCain to have a heart attack or stroke — then you’d have President Sarah Palin running the country. Would any of this have been better than your ‘disappointment’ with Obama?

  • adks

    Prof. Harris-Perry’s column is anything but “fantastic”. The basic premise is unsupported. Of course Clinton’s support went up among all groups in 1996. In 1992, he ran in a 3-way race, and won with a plurality. In 1996 it was a 2-way race. Dole’s numbers among various ethnic groups were probably higher than George I’s numbers too. So this tells us nothing about Obama’s situation, and the professor’s use of this as support for her argument is either silly, or disingenous.

    Second, her assumption that any decline in white voters’ support for Obama is due to racism, is just that, an assumption. She gives no basis in any facts for that. Regardless of whether or not people are right to be disappointed in Obama’s performance so far, there is no reason to assume that it is due to racism.

  • Jennyjinx

    Many of these progressives clearly haven’t read the president’s books. His positions and the degree of his liberalism, along with the backstory of his pragmatism, are outlined in easy-to-read type, and neither of his blockbuster best-sellers are difficult to find. (Readers of his books will also learn that nothing in this president’s past indicates that he responds well to inchoate shouting and anger. Nothing.)

    This is what they didn’t do. They didn’t pay attention. Those of us who did aren’t disappointed. We knew what to expect.

  • The_Dork_Knight

    Sociology undergrad me LOVES this conversation. Excellent posts by both Professor Perry and you, Bob, (btw, can Perry have her own MSNBC show…. Please?). But I disagree with them both. Lets look at the general thesis here:

    “These comparisons are neither an attack on the Clinton administration nor an apology for the Obama administration. They are comparisons of two centrist Democratic presidents who faced hostile Republican majorities in the second half of their first terms, forcing a number of political compromises. One president is white. The other is black… In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win… The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

    Like any decent scientist would, Professor Perry nuances her position a bit, but it generally reads thusly:

    Obama has out preformed Clinton. Clinton won reelection by a substantial margin. White support for Obama is dropping and endangering his reelection. Thus, we can infer that racism can be blames (in part or in whole.)

    While I believe that there are racists in the Democratic party, (Mrs. Clinton demonstrated that to me in 2008 well enough) I am concerned that Professor Perry is making an unwarranted leap in logic. She appears to have glossed over many other relevant variables. The first, (minor one) that springs to mind is that she is comparing Obama’s 2011 to Clinton’s 1996. This is not an election year and I suspect that most Dems will fall in line when they see the alternative.

    The major variable here is the economy. This is the variable that makes all the other variables almost irrelevant. Clinton had a booming economy to run on. President Obama has a nation of unemployed and financial stressed people howling in pain and anger and the perception is that the Government is either unwilling or unable to significantly address this problem. The country is watching the collapse of its social structures and is furious about it. President Obama has only recently begun to speak and act (with the forcefulness and repetitiveness necessary) as if he understands this. The fact that President Obama will be held responsible for the might not be rational in the strictest sense, but suffering people are rarely rational.

    In short, I think the situation is far more complex then either Professor Perry or Bob gives it credit for here, (with all intended respect to both of them.)

  • Miranda

    Bravo Mr. Cesca….Bravo

  • I agree with all of the above. There’s another factor, though, which is simply that this is what liberals do: they reflexively turn against every Democratic President. They don’t need reasons; only pretexts. They are most comfortable when “disappointed”, and so they view the world in a way that guarantees that comforting emotional state.

    There’s one (and only one) valid point Sirota made in the MHP aftermath: he noted that liberals like Clinton much more now than they did when he was President. This is a character flaw in liberals: they don’t appreciate their leaders until long after it can possibly do any good.

    • Miranda

      They are most comfortable when “disappointed”, and so they view the world in a way that guarantees that comforting emotional state.

      This is so true….why is that? I’m pretty sure its some sort of disorder when you are determined to be perpetually “sad”.

      • It’s because despite a near constant pathological need to point out how ruthless and evil conservative politics can be (in an attempt to feel “morally superior” to the other team), some progressives are never satisfied unless their leaders are engaging in the exact same kind of behavior.

        There is a portion of the liberal base who will only be happy when a Democratic president engages in each and every variety of behavior that they decried as horrific abuses of political power when a Republican did it – they don’t want a progressive leader, they want PAYBACK. Plain and simple.

        Republicans demonize unions, teachers, and the unemployed, so we can’t be happy until a Democratic President does the same thing to Christians, the entirety of the military right down to individual soldiers (I actually saw a post on another progressive blog suggesting that the gay soldier from the Republican debate DESERVED to get booed, simply for being a soldier), and each and every wealthy person in this country.

        Bush used executive orders to bypass congress, so Obama should too, despite the fact that this only increases the divisive nature of our politics. Trying to actually work within the system is a sign of “weakness”, and any acknowledgment that any LASTING step forward will require real compromise is “capitulation”.

        I have a feeling that this is the real driver of “progressive disappointment” with President Obama, not any deeply sublimated feelings about race.

      • Good point, Miranda. It’s the ‘they live to suffer’ syndrome — if things are actually progressing, there must be something wrong..

  • MonieTalks

    Fannie Lou Hamer is one of many civil rights warriors that helped advance the disenfranchised of the Civil Rights movement. She was so resolute that former President Lyndon B Johnson requested media attention be directed away from her as she challenged the all white Democratic Mississippi delegation at the 1964 Democratic Convention, even calling her “that illiterate woman.”

    One of my favorite quotes from her is

    White Americans today don’t know what in the world to do because when they put us behind them, that’s where they made their mistake… they put us behind them, and we watched every move they made.

    Of course at the time she made it, she lived in a harsh time of Jim Crow terrorism, almost being beat to death in 1963 on a false charge, but primarly because she was a Black woman activist working towards freedom.

    In many parts of the Black blogosphere, we have long taken notice of this toxic environment of double standards, selective outrage and gnashing, and ratfucking coming from the supposed self-appointed “base” of the party aka firebaggers, fauxgressives, the professional left and emo-progs.

    We have noticed that at most of these “professional left WATB” sites, the demographics of those who say they are the “base” have readerships that look like a Tea-Party rally…overwhelmingly white, middle-aged, and likely economically stable. It looks just like the demographics of the Democratic Party.(sarcasm) Its amazing how their discontent somehow becomes the opinion of an entire diverse coalition of people who they don’t even confer with.

    The thing is, most of these types will tell you that they have legitimate and pressing reasons why they can no longer stomach this President. And maybe they do…we all have different standards, though I know for sure these modern day “activists” do not even have a speck of dignity like those of yesterday’s civil rights armies. Keyboard complaining and theatrics (while pimping that fundraising flow) and the usual expletive laced diatribes from today’s so-called fauxgressive activist should make us all ashamed. But then I remember, it is a good formula for attention and media appearances.

    Anyways, I read something this week that made it even more apparent how backwards so many of these “thinkers” are.

    I have long realized that many fauxgressives are much angrier at Obama for not step and fetching their demands of undoing previous wrongs on their timelines than at those who helped create the environment to begin with. It was very telling that John Aravois, in his critique of Harris-Perry’s article, gave tremendous kudos to former President Clinton, whose signature helped usher in numerous anti-gay legislation. You see Clinton was more courageous than Obama for allowing the first gay person to speak at his convention in 1992. And yes I guess you can count that as courageous during that time. But less than a year later President Clinton refused hundreds of Haitian refugees entry into the US simply because they had HIV at Guantanamo Bay (yes that Guantanamo Bay). The conditions were deplorable; many Haitians who were already weakened went on hunger strike and his administration argued with the courts repeatedly to block the Haitians’ entry.


    I could care less about the way the usual suspects hold up their the perfect meter and measure this President against it. The truth is, every leader, from LBJ who disparaged Fannie Lou Hamer for wanting Blacks like her to be acknowledged at HIS convention (even while helping him win the Presidency and remaining one of the most devoted constituencies to the Democratic Party ever since), to Clinton’s bungled Haitian refugee response and many other progressive policy failure, no President will be operate without bumps in the roads and/or diversions.

    And this President has had to deal with unprecedented filibuster abuse, blocking of every official he has tried to nominate, kneecapping by fellow Democrats, an all of a sudden survey-obsessed media. He has to deal with an environment in which the bogus claims of the opposition actually shapes the narrative, and where revisionism is rampant in ALL circles of the political circles. And to top all that off, look at the condition this country was in when he picked up the reigns. Simply put, he has been held to a standard that only history may be able to give some scope to it…one day.

    And he had done all of this as a man of COLOR in this country, a group that has been one of the most emasculated and maligned group of people since they reached it shores.

    Ms. Hamer was right, we are sitting back watching every move they make. Even today.

    • Not only was there Truth, there was Power in that comment, MonieTalks. All of the Privileged need to read — and I mean absorb and take to heart — what you’ve said.

      If you have a blog (or other outlet for your writing), could you please share the URL? I very much want to read more of your words.

      • MonieTalks

        Thank you Bob! I am just one of many who is “tired of being tired” on all fronts. I won’t allow the toxicity from supposed allies to consume me or stifle the bigger movement that goes beyond this President. I tend to peruse some of the more pragmatic sites, but I spend a lot of time over at Pragmatic Obots Unite.


        Come hang out!

    • Very well said, Monie.

  • This post should have been a HuffPo column – it is fantastic!

    There are too many of you to single out, but I want to take some of the comments here and paste them all over the web they are so good. Thanks to most of you. This place keeps me sane.

  • rikyrah

    you are on point. a hit dog hollers and Professor Harris-Perry hit it out of the park.

  • There is just too much in Perry’s post and your post to agree with everything 100%…Bob, I am with you in spirit and think your take, assuming Perry’s post is 100 % true, is correct and agree where you go beyond.

    Here are a few critiques of the 2 Perry posts (the original and her response that should be included in analysis)



    • Be sure to read how those African American polling numbers cited in those critiques are a blatant lie:


      86% of African Americans polled maintain a favorable view of President Obama. The big drop of 83% to 58% was in strongly favorable views. There was a rise in favorable views to coincide with the decline in strongly favorable views.

      • That is correct…but it does show there are a lot of numbers out there, and they should all be compared on an apples to apples basis to see if there is significant empirical evidence that suggest that a group (supposedly non-racist) does show a racist bias in this particular case.

  • villemar

    Your analysis is BRILLIANT and spot on. THANK YOU.

    Sorry for cutting and pasting, but this is pretty much where I’m at right now…here’s a letter I wrote on Joan’s betty boo hoo piece about Harris-Perry:

    “Once again, Joan puts out more sad Concern Trolling for the Firebagger hipster shitheads at Salon to generate page hits.

    This shit is tiresome and that’s why I’m on here 99% less as I used to be, and why Salon has driven away most veterans.

    I don’t care anymore about trying to reason with the Greenbeckistani Firebaggers. Can’t do it, it’s a lost cause. There’s something about Obama that just drives Firebaggers completely batshit fucking crazy. I don’t know what it is, I’m sure racism may be a factor in some of it; the idea that Obama is your Personal Magic Negro and if you don’t get your magic unicorn that shits rainbows you’ll have the loudest ongoing emo shit fit in the history of shit fits. In fact, like your Teabagger analogs; you’ve constructed a whole parallel reality within this bubble, that Obama=Bush=Hitler=Vlad the Impaler=Caligula, that’s he’s some horrible cartoon supervillain that sits on a throne of human skulls and is the most bloodthirsty warmongering fascist in all of recorded human history.

    No credit for the actual progressive goals he’s accomplished (hint: more in 3 years than 12 years of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter combined); this doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter, it’s just the daily three or four issues that Aspergerian Libertarian Glenn Greenbeck harps on his daily linkfarms like Rain Man to the exclusion of everything else.

    You Firebaggers are NOT his base. His base are young people, the working poor, Hispanic and African Americans, actual Democrats, Union members, and people with basic common sense that don’t mariniate in bullshit emo blogs 24/7 from mommy’s basement.

    And grifters like GG, Joan Walsh, Jane Hamsher, Adam Greene, Ralph Nader, Alex Jones and Cornell West are just as much manufacturing, stoking and cashing in of Firebagger Obama Derangement Syndrome as Fox News manufactures, stokes and cashes in on Teabagger Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    You know what? Fuck them all, and fuck you too if you are an ODS-riddled Firebagger. Truman had to fight Dewey & Thurman on his right and the Progressive Party’s Henry Wallace on his left in 1948 and prevailed just as Obama will in 2012.

    So who the fuck cares, why not just skip the middle man and vote for Rick Perry directly and let him put Toby Keith, Michael Savage and fucking Wally George in the SCOTUS. Then cry and cut yourself.

    Oh and by the way, don’t think your emo, cunty, screeching, frothing “I hate Obama with the white-hot passion of elevendy kajillion suns!!111!!!11!!” bullshit is not going to get you any pushback. There is a small but growing segment of pragmatic progressive voices that are on to your ratfuckery and sick and tired of you miserable nihilists framing the narrative and claiming you in any way shape of form represent the totality of his base.

    So yeah, pretty much all Baggers, both Tea and Fire, can go fuck themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

    Have a lovely day!”

  • >But what’s truly motivating them? I think in some cases it’s racism, yes. See Harris-Perry’s “salvific” remarks above.

    Bob, do you not see the irony in this–that you, a white man with presumably no practical first-hand expertise in racism (which is indeed subtle, and slippery and insidious), has taken to divining racism in the minds of…other progressive whites? Has it not occurred to you at all, before you weighed in on this issue, that your deferring to Melissa Harris-Perry’s piece (and from there sticking a very nasty and *personal* tag on people you don’t know personally) isn’t very different from Joan Walsh’s deferring to her “black friend”?

    You’ve hammered ALL of these these same people before Harris-Perry’s piece ever came to be. You’ve constantly drawn critical focus on their positions–but have also often devolved, in slamming them, to corny, faddish neologisms like “firebagger” and “emo”…But now, all of a sudden, drawing vicariously from the moral authority of Harris-Perry’s experience, you’re a crusader against the “racism” of Greenwald, Hamsher, Sirota, Walsh, et al? It’s a nasty slander to make; and you’ve got zero moral basis to make such a charge against these people.

    President Obama, who – like me, and like Harris-Perry – has a lifetime of dealing with racist bullshit (both the insidious and the obvious kind) doesn’t need your help in this, Bob. He doesn’t need amateur anti-racist crusaders, when he’s facing cleaned-up Klansmen every day on the Hill.

    • ranger11

      A new liberal cause: “Save the Firebaggers”. The poor dears.

    • MrDHalen

      You can take that self-righteous-high-horse-crap and shove it. The history of the many different races on this planet proves no race makes it alone for good or bad. You want to attack a non African American for racial observations and claim Bob has no right to talk about this, fuck you!!! Black people didn’t free themselves from slavery and oppression alone; many white people and other races helped and continue to fight to bring justice and equality for all.

      Don’t cheapen this debate with that “No right to talk” crap. Just because you disagree and think that the people discussed are not racist does not give you the power to declare who is allowed to talk about this subject.

      “Obama, who – like me, and like Harris-Perry” – Go f*** yourself!!! I hate that shit!

      • ranger11

        The problem I have with this dude’s opinion is that Bob is not alone in his assessment of this situation. It’s a very reasoned logical position. Even if he was he didn’t deserve this crap, sheeeit!

      • “Black people didn’t free themselves from slavery and oppression alone; many white people and other races helped…”

        I’m confused “Dan”: are you talking about yourself, or speaking on behalf of/channeling John Brown, Schwerner & Goodman et al? Would you like some sort of meek & grateful acknowledgement of the role of whites in civil rights struggles, in place of a studied skepticism?

        And how am I to take this sermonette about “different races on the planet,” punctuated with your telling me a few times to go fuck myself? You’re the obverse of those tricorne-wearing retards on the other side, “Dan”: in spite of the progressive principles you think you possess, your shrill, irrational, pissed-off does no cause any good.

        • Sabreen60

          Wrong. What the Janes, Greenwalds, Wests and Smilelys do is diminish this President. And they do it on purpose. Its’ racism for some, Obama Derangement Syndrome for others and $$$. So Bob, when I hear people like Bill Maher call the President a pu$$y and say he thought he had voted for a “black guy” and Michael Moore agree with him; when I go to these firebagger (yeah firebagger) web sites and hear them call the President an “Uncle Tom” and “House Nigger”, I say kiss my ass to all of them. They would rather have a Rick Perry in the White House (with some stupid 3rd grade analysis that bringing the entire nation down with cause it to rise again like the phoenix in Harry Potter) than a Black man who is working his ass off against odds that I didn’t imagine even though I’ve been black for 62 years in the United States of America.

        • MrDHalen

          What I’m telling you “Greg”, and yes I see your condescending bullshit there; is that Bob as well as anybody out there has a right to express their observations. You make the claim that Bob has unjustly claimed MHP’s position and that he has no right to because he is white. Well, you are wrong!

          I told you to go f*** yourself because I hate when people try to stifle discussion with “You don’t have the right”; well I do have the right to discuss whatever I want to discuss and have opinions. I am not a government employee; does that mean I cannot talk about government? I am not a woman; do I not have the right to discuss women’s issues?

          That’s all the time I have for your smug rebuttal.

    • mrbrink

      President Obama has done more for the advancement of progressive legislation and principles more so than any of the people you mentioned, combined. Their combined life’s work will NEVER come close to comparing to two years of president Obama’s progressive achievements. That’s just reality.

      He’s the real deal. The one who has signed actual bills that expand actual civil rights and liberties. Civil rights and liberties that did not exist before 2008. Not to be confused with the aristocrat choir who sing songs of one day doing something to make a difference in this country if they could just get some blog traffic– with Updates! from the comfort of their progressive sensory deprivation tanks.

      So, in the context these facts– facts– the explanations for such empty dissent is narrowing.

      You tell me. Are these so called progressive champions racist, or just delusional, self-important fools?

      • ranger11

        Both? But in the end does it really matter. I am really shocked that the Left in this country is led by such elitist assholes. And I’ve been voting “Left” since Jesse Jackson in the ’88 primary.

      • Dan_in_DE

        This is a perfect response to their apologists. I love it!

        Also, anyone who has payed attention to Bob’s writing knows that he poses this question and always leans toward the latter explanation – the Greenwalds and Hamshers must be doing it for popularity and traffic.

      • I don’t think you are in any position to make these comments, nor do I believe that you are anything other than a cranky apologist for the Firebagging Left.

        Oops…….this was intended as a reply to Greg L.. Sorry, mrbrink.

    • Greg, I disagree with your post. Who better to talk about the racism in other whites than a white American who has seen it all of his or her life? It is also possible to have ‘progressive’ or liberal racism, such as the woman I once knew who had her walls festooned with plaques and honoraria from the NAACP, United Negro College Fund and similar organizations, and smiling pictures of her and her husband with various black writers, educators, scientists and entertainers, yet objected to a black man being hired as a janitor in her high-rise building. The racism on the left is just more covert and insidious than that on the right, but it does exist.

    • ABL

      Bob has the right. I just deemed it so.

      All better?

      Or he can change the byline to my name.

      I mean, what is the point of a comment like this?

  • mrbrink

    President Obama taking criticism from the left.

    Just as rational.

  • I have to add: You don’t leave room for ANY honest complaint. And you must know that is completely nuts.

    And that you have bought into the idea that a list of accomplishments should quiet people – as if gross failures aren’t part of the equation – gah. ‘Praising the paint job on a falling down house’ isn’t exactly right, but a person has a right to make a “The bad is worse bad than the good is good’ assessment. You can argue with it, but saying it’s inherently dishonest or dumb or racist is wrong.

    Also, notice how you’ve set this up: Accomplishments get “Obama did this!” and failures get “Well he couldn’t have done anything because of Congress!” It’s a formula for “Never wrong!” Again: Surprisingly weak arguments here.

    I think Libya was right – and I do not understand not trying to get congressional approval. I think Progressive racism is real and needs to be called out. I think the health care law was a HUGE accomplishment, one that will lead one day to expanded Medicare. And I do not support a primary, and I will definitely vote for Obama in 2012.

    And that article and this support of it is depressing and offensive.

    • ranger11

      Take Abilify.

    • bphoon

      You know, there comes a time when a person just has to vent. You feel better now?

      I’m glad you don’t support a primary and will vote for Obama in 2012. I wish more progressive critics of this president would mix a little more of that in with their criticism.

      Like it or not, governing is about compromise. That’s just a fact of life. None of us will get everything we want, ever. While I think that, particularly early in his presidency, Obama tended to err by mistaking his compromise position for the starting point in his negotiations, he has lately been able to leverage the GOP’s belief that he’ll cave if they simply continue to obstruct long enough.

      He played them like a fiddle during the debt ceiling debate. He played them during the lame duck Congress, too, even if you don’t think he fought hard enough on the Bush tax cuts. Extending those tax rates was the price of such things as repeal of DADT, bringing the DREAM Act to a vote, the extension of unemployment benefits and two or three other progressive priorities that time was running out on. That he was able to get all those things for just a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts I take as a net positive. Since then, public support for letting those sunset has grown immensely.

      He has proposed one of the most sweeping pieces of jobs legislation since the New Deal. Yes, there’s debt reduction and deficit reduction in there–most of it in the out years where it belongs. His first priority in this legislation is jobs, unquestionably. He is in position now to be able to show the GOP for the obstructionist stooges with no serious ideas that they are. He is setting the stage for making this election about a choice rather than a referendum and can draw a very sharp contrast between the two sides.

      What aggravates me about the “professional left” is that they tend to apply the same kind of ideological purity tests the Tea Party does. They seem to expect Obama to bat 1.000 on their agenda and when he hits .750 he’s a failure. They made Obama out to be a hard left liberal when he’s clearly a left-of-center pragmatist and always has been.

      My question to them is: if Obama isn’t liberal enough for you, who the fuck is your alternative? Ralph Nader? If Obama is weakened by a primary or if enough people from the left pull a 2010 and stay home, we’ll end up with Mit Romney or Rick Fucking Perry in the White House, a larger GOP majority in the House and maybe Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader.

      Geez, that’ll really show ’em won’t it?

    • mrbrink

      The only weak argument here is yours. You’re talking out of turn.

      You said: “I think Progressive racism is real and needs to be called out.”

      Setting aside the fact that you cannot be a racist and call yourself “Progressive,” just like you cannot understate the significance of the president’s expansion of civil liberties and rights and still call yourself Progressive, but you think actually calling out racism in this context as one of the last remaining explanations for this incessant, and apparently effective, vote-depressing ignorance is what makes this whole conversation “depressing and offensive?”

      And this: “I think the health care law was a HUGE accomplishment, one that will lead one day to expanded Medicare. And I do not support a primary, and I will definitely vote for Obama in 2012.”

      Is that what makes president Obama’s supporters so “depressing and offensive” to you? Amplifying the importance of the president’s progressive signature is nothing to be depressed about, or offended by.

      You have a long way to go toward a coherent dialogue. I’m offended and depressed at the thought of you out there in the world posting your idea of “depressing and offensive.”

      “I think the health care law was a HUGE accomplishment, one that will lead one day to expanded Medicare. And I do not support a primary, and I will definitely vote for Obama in 2012”

      Just leave it at that until you know what it is you’re adding to the discussion. You can’t go wrong. Your vague whining is a shitty diaper on progress.

      • ABL

        The notion that one cannot be “a racist” and call oneself “Progressive” is patently and provably untrue.

        Until folks realize that racism on the left is real and commit to wrestling with it, there will be no progress.

        That mental block must be broken down.

        Moreover, folks must realize that being A Racist and saying Racist Shit are two very different things.

        • mrbrink

          Prove it, then.

          Adding, you can be a racist, and you can be Progressive, but you cannot be both.

          If you’re racist, you’re something other than “progressive,” by definition, and calling yourself progressive does not make you progressive.

          But again, to say it is patently and provably untrue that progressives can’t be racist, show me a racist progressive and I’ll show you a fraud. If you can find one.

        • “Until folks realize that racism on the left is real and commit to wrestling with it, there will be no progress.”

          I agree with this.

    • Bob did leave room for honest complaint. He said,

      Smart accountability is the solution. Promote the good things and criticize the bad by constructing rational counter-arguments. Rachel Maddow is a solid illustration of the “smart accountability” ideal

      • I agree with the sentiment, but writing that after dismissing every critic as racist, careerist, or dishonest hardly cuts it. And the Maddow thing honestly feels like asskissing. Maddow has frequently said many of the same things as Greenwald has. And, again – and it looks as if it won’t be copped to – painting the critics (especially Greenwald, in this case, because I read him and I’ve seen him praise Obama on a number of occasions) as 100% negative, as Cesca has done, is actually dishonest, and weird to see here.

    • Little Australia, I have critcized Obama, too, but in the same fashion as you criticize a good friend or family member — just because you disagree with them on some things doesn’t mean they suddenly turn into Evil Incarnate who should be shunned as an enemy of the people. Yet this is the extreme anti-Obama rhetoric on some websites — read Ted Rall or Cornel West to see what I mean.

      And always keep foremost in your mind what the GOP alternative to Obama will be in 2012.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I have one very simple question:

    Why does Al Sharpton have a TV show on MSNBC and Melissa Harris-Perry does not?

    • She’s was getting an ‘on air’ audtion lately. She might have her own show in the future. (Or Current may hire her.)

  • And Greenwald, just for one, goes out of his way to praise Obama when he does something unarguably good. That is your strawman.

    And “emo”? You’re honestly going to go there? Oy. what a disappointment.

  • “I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.”

    I don’t know how any reasonable person can not see that as offensive in the extreme. My disappointment with the lack of fight on the Bush Tax Cuts, on the squashing of the very concept of whistleblowing, and of Obama’s adoption of RW delusion (lowering debt is more important than jobs!), is because I thought President Black Guy would …

    Fuck you. Jesus. That is sick.

    P.S. “In baseball, a .300 average is Hall of Fame worthy.” Wow, Bob, you’re smart guy – and that is so dumb. So, so dumb.

    • ranger11

      No, fuck you, emo piece of shite.

      • ranger, I don’t agree with Little Australia’s position but the baseball metaphor was the one thing that I didn’t like in the article. We often accuse the other side of treating politics like a game when it isn’t, when what they do (or don’t do) ends up hurting real people it is most certainly NOT a game. So it’s not necessarily in our best interest to use game metaphors to make our arguments. It’s not baseball….it’s people’s lives. That was the only misstep in Bob’s otherwise brilliant post.

    • Little Australia, Obama traded extending Bush’s tax cuts for the end of DADT and extending unemployment benefits for people who otherwise might have starved. Maybe you think that’s a bad deal, but it made life better for tens of millions of people in this country. Perhaps you should get over your disappointment. When you become an adult, you’ll find there will be many.

  • hedgesahead

    Look, can I please stop catching flack for supporting John Edwards? A-hole was a southerner speaking a labor-progressive line that beat Obama’s conciliatory consensus-builder spiel every time. We get it, he’s a cad (I thought we didn’t mind that on the left). It’s just a more contemporary Monkey Business incident. And darned if Hart wouldn’t have been a better candidate than Dukakis, ken? The gall of us, not having your psychic powers. ‘Smart’ indeed.

    • You’re taking it way too personally.

    • ranger11

      I voted for Edwards in the primary. Thank god he didn’t win the nomination.

    • Don’t sweat it, I supported Edwards early on too. Bob actually voted for Nader back in the day (at least I remember him saying something to that effect). We admit our mistake (and castigate ourselves and each other for years) and then finally move on. It’s the liberal way, doncha know?! 😉

      • I supported Nader in 2000 as well, because he said he was going to work to build the Greens into a viable third party. Then 2004 came around and Ralph had done next to nothing, except he was running for president again and just happened to have a new book out. Nader has great ideas sometimes but he’s a terrible politician and I suspect he’d be just as bad as president. It’s a little late now, but he should have run for Congress as a Democrat and then run for president. Of course, that would mean he mght have to make decisions as a legislator his supporters wouldn’t like and he probably wouldn’t have been able to sell as many books. It’s always easy to play the game when you’re on the sidelines and you can hold yourself blameless no matter who wins.

  • JWheels


    As far as your list of Obama’s Liberal/Progressive achievements is concerned, unfortunately it seems you do need to run through it. Often. Especially in your Huffington Post essays where the emo left is more likely to see it. They might come around before Nov. 2012.

    Once there’s a specific opposition candidate to compare Obama to I’m hopeful they’ll make a sensible choice. If the Cartman-esque “Screw you guys, we’re staying home!” attitude prevails we’re all fucked. Then we get treated to 4-8 years of their emo whining about the bad as Bush president they currently seem determined to stick us with at the moment.


  • Wow Bob u r on fire this week. Outstanding post!

  • What Dan Halen said: “Wow, Bob, freaking AWESOME post!!!!”


  • MrDHalen

    Wow, Bob, freaking AWESOME post!!!!

    I would like to add, I think many whites are seeing what I believe many professional minorities face in their careers. There is very little room for error and you must perform at levels above those of fellow white people. We are seeing it happen in real time with this President. I would like to add women to this as well, whenever they take a job that is traditionally done by men, they too are held to higher standards and expectations are raised unfairly.

    People under play how much subconscious racism there is out there, but I also think America has a much larger problem with imperial delusion. The disconnect from reality in this country is staggering on both sides of the aisle; and independents are no better. I personally fear we are an empire due for a major correction in our real status. This country has been declared a loss by many of the wealthy and now it is time to liquidate the remaining assets to benefit the top 1 percent before the natives (middle-class & poor) realize what has happened.

    I don’t know how this next election is going to turn out, but I hope we do the right thing as a nation and reelect Obama. I have been surprised by this great nation before and I hope to be again, but for now I come to this little section of the Internet and bask in the post and comments of fellow progressives trying to hold what’s left of the country they love together.

    Great comments everybody and great post Bob. Ashby, you already know you’re awesome. 

  • dildenusa

    I think it was obvious that when President Obama came in he would, as Teddy Roosevelt said, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” Walking softly is the keyword here. Don’t make the mistake of starting a war on dubious evidence, don’t antagonize the loyal opposition, and don’t appear weak. As far as the loyal opposition, who antagonized who? If Hilary Clinton was president and Mitch Mcconnell said, “the job of the loyal opposition is to make Hilary a one term president” he would have been vilified and burned at the stake. Instead he is called statesman like. Statesman like? Please, give me a break.

    As far as appearing weak, President Obama had to compromise on the debt ceiling issue. There was no way around it. Gridlock must be blamed on the republican leadership. I think with the health care law he was shy about arm twisting scum bags like Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln. Also it was obvious he was giving in to the legal drug pushers and the health insurance companies. Well, you have to rationalize that half a loaf is better than none.

    Now it appears that many white, non hispanic democrats, liberals, and progressives will be content with Mitt Romney. OK. Let’s ask the question, will you be content with Mitt Romney and the republicans capturing the senate and holding onto the house? I don’t think so.

  • tnlib

    I’ve nearly started WWIII pointing this out on several occasions – starting back near the end of 2010. Insults and denials of “I’m not racist” would quickly follow. I hate it that it’s happening but I’m glad to see it verified by people a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than me. And here we have not one, but two, extraordinarily bright minds. Thank you.

    With the exception of ideology (although I’m beginning to have a few concerns there as well), the far-left resembles the far-right in startling ways.

    Rick James, you make some very astutue observations. Here are a few more:


    • tcatherine

      Something sticks in my mind. I read the book “Reading Lolita in Tehran” and the author brings up the history building to their “revolution”. She mentions that the theocratic forces and the communistic forces were vying for power but the one thing they could agree on was their revulsion towards “liberals”. I have often thought about that when I see the far left and the far right attack our, as far as I am concerned, truly liberal President.

    • Thanks, tnlib, that was an excellent article. I tried to leave a comment but it didn’t post for some reason. Anyway, thanks for the link.

      • tnlib

        Thanks, Rick. Don’t know what’s going on with the comments but you aren’t the only one with this problem apparently. : (

  • Nicely done Bob! I haven’t read Perry’s post yet but, having just read yours, I’ll dig in. I really can’t stand many of the WATB’s you’ve talked about in this post. They’ve never met a negative angle that they didn’t like when it comes to this president. Which is why I’ve tooned all of them out. If I wanted to hear from people who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, I’d simply watch fox news. At least they’re authentically ignorant, hateful, and delusional in their bullshit criticism of the president.

  • Parts of the problem have been ably and clearly outlined by Harris-Perry and Bob Cesca, but some other less-than-savory aspects have come to light about those I once considered progressive and the anti-Obama left in general:

    1) Some progressives apparently don’t understand how our tripartite government works and apparently believed Obama could wave a magic wand and somehow force Republicans and Blue Dog Dems to vote for any bill he submitted. They thought they were electing a king instead of a president.

    2.) Others believe Obama made promises he never made, such as pulling out of Afghanistan, nationalizing the banks and establishing single-payer universal health care. Some are also as obstinate as a Teabagger in sticking to these false assertions.

    3) There are, sadly, people who call themselves progressive who, I think, are covertly on the take from the GOP. I say this because some of them echo GOP talking points so closely and so often it’s implausible to think they didn’t get them in an email from the RNC. Of course, there are also right-wing sock puppets who troll liberal sites and unload their venom against Obama. Usually they can be identified by their lack of factual basis for their claims; tendency to use terms like ‘Obomber’ or ‘DemoRats’; and appeals to either stay home, vote for a third party that can’t possibly win, or vote for a Republican because ‘at least you know what you’re getting.’

    3) There are also those who I think are sincere, but have gotten it in their heads they are entitled to be paid to post articles or other anti-Obama material to pro-Obama publications and that any failure of the editors of those publications to buy their stuff is tantamount to some kind of Obama-imposed censorship of their right to free speech. It’s a novel argument for free-lancers, I suppose, but it holds about as much water as a sieve.

    Irrational progressives who will accept nothing less than unattainable perfection from Obama in enacting their personal agendae are just as unrealistic and zealous as the Christopublican Teabaggers. I ony hope some of these people seriously consider what America would be like under a Rick Perry or Mitt Romney or other right-wing Republican — think Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio or Michigan — before they let their disappointment in Obama sap their common sense.

    • Scopedog

      You nailed it!

    • LynnVeraLynn

      thank you very much. most excellent. as Scopedog says, you did indeed nail it.

    • America_Shrugged

      It’s all about the money. It use to be that liberal websites had fairly mainstream advertisers. Now when you visit these blogs, it’s hard go tell whether you stumbled into a tea potter den or not. I’m disgusted with many liberals these days, and I am a liberal. It’s rare that I visit blogs any more. That being said, it’s OBAMA 2012 for me. Thanks to Rachel for pointing out this blog. Thanks Bob..

      • Just a note about liberal websites running GOP ads: if it goes through Google, the owner of the website has no control over the ads Google puts up and sometimes they are contrary to the politics of the site. It doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the way it works. Still, most of those liberal sites need the money from Google to stay in business. It’s a shame someone like a George Soros or Warren Buffett doesn’t come along and spend money on more progressive sites, but that’s the way things are. For now.

  • Excellent post. It is infuriating how everyone dismisses POTUS accomplishments and harps about things he was forced to compromise in order to keep the country running, extend unemployment and a host of other things that are taken for granted regularly. No other administration has been held hostage and treated like an unwanted bastard child by Congress like this one.

    • TalkieToaster2

      It’s a nice game they’ve set up for themselves.

      1) If the president does something, “WE MADE HIM DO IT, HE DIDNT’ REALLY WANT TO”, with a side of “WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?”

      2) If the president doesn’t do something they demand, “YOU SUCK OBAMA!! PRIMARY HIM!”

      No matter what the outcome, Obama was wrong, and they’re “right”.

  • Paddy

    Spot the fuck on Bob.

  • shivabeach

    Some people will be more than happy to vote for the GOP and get the guy who will soon be taking their rights away.

    Batting .750 isnt bad at all. Well done Bob

  • Dorothy Rissman

    Well done sir. Terrific piece. I have bookmarked HumanityCritic’s Link

  • JMAshby

    You said it all.

    I’ll add that false, righteous anger “sells.” It’s “in.” Stickin’ it to The Man, if you will. It’s incredibly immature and opportunistic.

    Personally I think it’s careerism more than anything, but more than that I think some of these people suffer from PTSD from the Bush years. I really do. I’d consider some of their reactions to be almost involuntary.

    • Scopedog

      “It’s incredibly immature and opportunistic. ”

      And it’s nihilistic as well. Honestly, do these, well, jerks even realize that the alternative–GOP rule–will be much, much worse, and that like it or not, President Obama is the only sane choice?

      If they honestly do not give a s**t, then that’s truly terrifying.

      • imavettoo

        I think Bob will let you say shit.

  • Terrific take down Bob. Thanks, I’ve been making the same argument.

    • maggy

      There are a lot of us that are. I understand that GOP/RW lies, that’s a given, but how many times do you have to tell people that Timothy Giethner NEVER worked for Goldman -Sachs, etc.etc, and I keep hearing the same lies repeated over and over. I thought our side was supposed to be all about the truth. Their screeds have just become ugly hate speech to me.

      • Scopedog

        “…but how many times do you have to tell people that Timothy Giethner NEVER worked for Goldman -Sachs…”

        Too many times. And yet, there’s folks like Matt Taibbi still spouting it out, by God and Sonny Jesus.

    • Scopedog

      Agreed, Patrick. Bob did a fantastic job with this. What he’s said–and what Prof. Harris-Perry wrote about–is necessary and needs to be put out there, because frankly, I’ve been thinking the same thing….they–and I mean the emoprogs and folks like Greenwald and Hamsher–are always beating up on the President and screaming that he’s done nothing when in fact his record says otherwise.

      Is it ignorance? Couldn’t be, especially when all one has to do is look around.

      • imavettoo

        We are our own worst enemies, maybe not as bad as Jane, but bad.

  • Is Aravosis still “boycotting” Obama for completely abandoning his promise to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”?

    • TippersDad

      I guess it’s called a “concensus” when you’ve deleted and blocked all who don’t post statements in absolute agreement.

      In the real world, when you only accept comments or posters in accord with strict pro-Obama guidelines, it’s called “cooking the books”. And you end up with only half of the truth.

      How many posters and comments has Bob’s worker bees banished from the blog today?

      • Stop repeating the same false crap in the same thread.

        Again, if you had a comment deleted, it must have been really, really bad.

        As you can clearly see, moron, there are many people here posting who do not agree with us.