It's hate. Period.

[ProSense]

I posted this comment in response to a recent OP:

It's racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy, but a lot of it is based on race, even the envy.

Imagine if any of the other Democratic candidates had succeeded Bush, and did half what Obama has done, including passing health care reform. He/she would have been hailed as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Look at the reaction to Bill Clinton's DNC speech, erupting in claims of "that's how it's done." It was as if none of the President's or his teams great work mattered (like that kick-ass digital whiteboard by Stephanie Cutter). There is a constant drumbeat by some to portray President Obama as the lesser. There are some people constantly trying to match wits with the him. They know they're better at PR, at winning, at everything. There is always a certain condescension in the advice and criticism is taken to literal extremes, scrutiny of everything is against the ideal (I call it hyperbolic prose), declaring he falls short in areas where no other President has even ventured. How many times have people launched into such attacks, declaring that the President "stands for nothing"? He have been portrayed as heartless, soulless and in some instances evil. Tell me where that fits into constructive criticism?

Forget Bush. I remember the Clinton Presidency with Gore as VP. Heartless? Soulless? Evil?

Yeah, what is that?

Some of criticism comes with the territory, and some of it is made easy because on certain policies (post 9/11 national security), Bush is the only contrast.

Yeah, it's a lot of things, but no one can exclude race/hate because it's driving a lot of it.

- end -

That was a general observation not directed at anyone specific, but there is validity to that assessment.

Consider this bizarre diary at Daily Kos: Obama did not save the economy. Social Security did.

Some Kossacks are getting pretty upset that more and more of us are coming to the realization that President Obama is a corporatist shill who has done very little to help improve the economic situation for working Americans. There is a recommended diary as I write that asserts "Obama SAVED the US Economy" and argues that it was Obama's "massive stimulus and jobs package that rescued this country from Soviet-style collapse."

In a word: bullshit.

<...>

People who defend Obama at this point, I dismiss as people who are comfortably ensconced in nice, middle class professional jobs. The professional class. They are complete and I am coming to believe, nearly irredeemable idiots on questions of economics.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/20/1217440/-Obama-did-not-save-the-economy-Social-Security-did

I guess the next question is: So how did Obama get elected? One could assume that people aren't interested in voting against their interests, but have no desire to see the President credited for any of his achievements. Another assumption is that some of these people are not Democrats and do not vote for Democrats.

Giving the President credit seems very hard for some, and they spend all their time trying to prove not only that he hasn't accomplished a single thing, but also that he is likely working against the average American and doing all sort of nefarious things.

One is not an "idiot" for supporting the President. One isn't a "shill" for defending him. There are enough people trying to tear him down, at least allow others to offer a counterpoint without attacking them.

Closing out President Obama's first term - we've come a long way
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223211

[graham4anything]

1. 100% correct. Highly r&k. Five touchdowns in a row to win the game.

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. That's a field goal.

Not a touchdown, but something tells me you knew that already.

[graham4anything]

24. it's 2 1/2 times more better than a FG, so I said TD to make a point.

[TransitJohn]

128. a touchdown is worth exactly two field goals eom

n/t

[progressoid]

167. haaahahaha

Yeah, you made a point alright.

[sibelian]

2. You benefit emotionally from that position...

But that doesn't mean it's true.

[Buzz Clik]

4. I think she's correct.

[daybranch]

38. political correctness

sibelian has it right. Dissent against Obama from many is not hate or racism within the democratic party. To many of us, he is usually but not always doing the right thing and many of us are getting tired of those unthinking Obamabots who support policies blindly based on past or current affection for a charismatic figure. I love and respect President Obama. We need him but there are times I disagree with his actions. Chained CPI is one. Delaying administrative actions he can legally take now to protect our environment is another. The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement may become another. I hate NAFTA and blame Clinton for it. So you see, you do not have to give up rational thinking just because you worked hard as I did to support President Obama in both elections.

[davidpdx]

55. This what is the problem.....

people like you that say this and then claim the other side is pushing propaganda. Hypocrisy at its finest.

To many of us, he is usually but not always doing the right thing and many of us are getting tired of those unthinking Obamabots who support policies blindly based on past or current affection for a charismatic figure.

[Buzz Clik]

3. +1

[blkmusclmachine]

417. Personality Politics. A sure sign of desperation.

As the saying goes: "That dog don't hunt."

[baldguy]

5. K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

6. The wealthiest have gained $5 trillion since Obama took office

While the rest of us lost $600 billion.

And we need to cut Social Security earned benefits. By 22%, says Obama's hand-picked committee.

And the illegal foreclosures, virtually unpunished. And the banker money laundering, virtually unpunished. And using the Fourth Amendment as toilet paper. And more "free" trade agreements.

I suppose we should embrace these things?

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. So true

[JW2020]

21. Obama will be seen as the Hoover of our times.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Actually...

Great article from 2009:

Barack Hoover Obama

[ProSense]

47. You prove the point.

You've been posting that article since 2009. The President didn't even have a record of accomplishments yet, but it was already determined that he was Hoover.

It was nonsense then, and it's still nonsense.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. The author pointed out that Obama was slavishly following Hoover's policies, and

predicted that he'd reap Hoover's results.

And here we are.

[EOTE]

111. Apparently when an author makes a prediction that later becomes true, he's not being astute.

He's simply being a racist. That he was accurate is merely incidental, that he criticized a black man means that he's racist.

[JW2020]

72. Yeah we should look at Obama's accomplishments in the US Senate

Oh wait, he doesn't have any because as soon as he was sworn in as Senator he immediately began campaigning for President.

[AtomicKitten]

230. don't be a ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/07/07/547838/-Don-t-be-a-dummy-Know-Obama-s-accomplishments-as-Senator

[mountain grammy]

118. Yep, they had him all figured out 3 months into his presidency.

He "will fail." Wow, that's what we want to hear 3 months after his inaugural.

Funny how there was so little criticism of Bush 9 months after his inaugural when planes were crashing into buildings. Where were the "he will fail" words of wisdom then?

[quakerboy]

415. I wasnt here then, but I would imagine DU was full of Bush Critics

Im pretty sure DU weren't Bush fans, even around 9/11 times.

I personally was undecided on bush till the election got stolen. That bit of criminality gave me all the information I needed on what kind of president he would be. After his election I predicted he would accomplish absolutely nothing and be a failure as a president, eminently forgettable. I was pretty well right until the twin towers somehow gave him unlimited power. Then things went really wrong, instead of just gridlocked.

Ya know, if you cloned Bush, put the Obama machine behind him, along with a D behind his name, but keep intact all the Bush policy's verbatim, Im pretty sure there are a ton of current poster who would be big fans. Big big fans! With lots of posts praising him.

[JaneyVee]

32. No, Hoover caused a depression and cut taxes. Quite the opposite from this President.

[JW2020]

42. Incorrect

Both Presidents did nothing despite the overwhelming evidence of financial catastrophe on the horizon.

[JaneyVee]

45. How many Jobs Bills must Republicans block before we start blaming Congress?

[BlueCaliDem]

365. It's not that One's job to blame Congress. It's here to blame President Obama.

And it shows. A true Progressive and/or Liberal would understand that Congress, not the president, decides national policy. Rightwing Trolls, don't because it doesn't fit in their strategy of weakening this president.

[backwoodsbob]

413. So when Shrub was president did we blame him or Congress? nt

[EOTE]

114. I wouldn't say he did nothing, just that what he did was woefully insufficient.

The world's top economists, including a very vocal Paul Krugman knew what needed to be done and they said so very loudly. That Obama provided a stimulus only a fraction of what was required I think will haunt his legacy forever.

[Buzz Clik]

222. That is a bizarre claim, JWnumbers...

Care to elaborate? I see that the discussion continues below, but where did you come up with that notion?

[ProSense]

23. You know what's interesting:

"The wealthiest have gained $5 trillion since Obama took office"

...that in an OP where I cite a specific example of irrational criticism, the reactions amount to red herrings and attacks.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. We're in a depression, and Obama sups regularly with Jamie and Lloyd,

fills his White House with bankers, gives them fantastic cover and protection, and... SURPRISE... the wealthiest get wealthier while the rest of us circle drain.

Krugman? Stiglitz? Persona non grata in the Banker White House.

Perhaps the red herrings will nibble our decaying flesh when we make it down the drain, through the sewage, and out into the ocean. Which will be fouled by leaking Keystone XL poisons.

[ProSense]

53. On pace for "strongest annual rate for private sector job growth since 1999"

On pace for "strongest annual rate for private sector job growth since 1999"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022792808

There are people who deal with facts, not political agendas or spin.

[MannyGoldstein]

83. "Number of homeless students hits new record"

Number of homeless students hits new record: Over 1 million

The number of homeless students in America topped one million for the first time last year as a result of the economic recession, a number that has risen 57 percent since 2007.

The US Department of Education found that of these 1,065,794 children, many lived in abandoned homes, cheap hotels, stations, church basements and hospitals. Some spent their time sleeping over at the houses of various friends whenever they could. Others fell victim to drugs and sexual abuse, in some cases trading sexual acts for food, clothing and shelter or selling illegal drugs.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 requires pubic schools to register homeless children. The Department of Education report was only able to compile data from those currently enrolled in school, which indicates that there may be many more homeless children or infants living on the streets without an education.

The southern US state of Georgia has in recent years always had the highest number of homeless children. As many as 45,000 homeless kids and teens are on the street or in a temporary shelter each night in Georgia, 14,000 of which are in Atlanta.

Fact, not political opinion or spin.

Here's some more:

'Real' Jobless Rate Still Above 10% In Most States

Though employment has risen by 1.3 million over the past year, unemployment that counts the discouraged and underemployed, as well as the jobless (often called the "real" unemployment rate) has remained stubbornly high, at 13.8 percent of the workforce, according to the most recent count.

In fact, a state-by-state look at the numbers, released a few days ago and current through the first quarter, shows that just six states have real rates below 10 percent.

Obama Meets With Blankfein, Dimon and Moynihan Today

This will be Blankfein’s third meeting with Obama since the president was re-elected, according to one person. Blankfein, 58, is chairman of the Financial Services Forum and Moynihan, 53, is vice chairman. JPMorgan’s Dimon, 57, runs the biggest U.S. bank by assets. It’s based in New York along with Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest securities traders, while Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, has its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, is the biggest U.S. home lender.

[ProSense]

92. Digging into recent poverty data

Reposted from here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022928129

Recently, an Alternet article citing current poverty data was posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022906982

Half of America is in poverty, and its creeping toward 75%
http://www.alternet.org/economy/real-numbers-half-america-poverty-and-its-creeping-toward-75-0

If you click on the first link, it takes you to the following Census data:

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2011.

• In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty.
  
  
• After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statisti¬cally different from the 2010 estimates1
  
  
• The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, nonciti¬zens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropol¬itan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.
  
  
• For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for noncitizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased.
  
  
• The poverty rate in 2011 for chil¬dren under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.2

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

Go to the "Publications" tab for more information.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Sex

• The poverty rate for males decreased between 2010 and 2011, from 14.0 percent to 13.6 percent, while the poverty rate for females was 16.3 percent, not statistically different from the 2010 estimate.

<...>

Health Insurance Coverage

• The number of people with health insurance increased to 260.2 million in 2011 from 256.6 million in 2010, as did the percentage of people with health insurance (84.3 percent in 2011, 83.7 percent in 2010).
  
  
• The percentage of people covered by private health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 63.9 percent. This was the first time in the last 10 years that the rate of private health insurance coverage has not decreased. The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 55.1 percent.
  
  
• The percentage of people covered by government health insurance increased from 31.2 percent to 32.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid increased from 15.8 percent in 2010 to 16.5 percent in 2011. The percentage covered by Medicare also rose over the period, from 14.6 percent to 15.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid in 2011 was higher than the percentage covered by Medicare.
  
  
• In 2011, 9.7 percent of children under 19 (7.6 million) were without health insurance. Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2010 estimate. The uninsured rate also remained statistically unchanged for those age 26 to 34 and people age 45 to 64. It declined, however, for people age 19 to 25, age 35 to 44 and those age 65 and older.
  
  
• The uninsured rate for children in poverty (13.8 percent) was higher than the rate for all children (9.4 percent).
  
  
• In 2011, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased from 25.4 percent for those in households with annual income less than $25,000 to 7.8 percent in households with income of $75,000 or more.
  
  <...>

- more -

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Dire information, but I would say a decrease in the poverty rate among most groups between 2010 and 2011 is big news, as is the information on health insurance coverage.

[dflprincess]

395. I don't see anything that tells us how many of those with health insurance can afford to use it.

Too many people will remain underinsured and will still not be able to afford the care they need.

Passing the Heritage Foundation's Profit Protection Act is no great accomplishment and everyone on this board would have been howling if Bush had pushed that scam.

[L0oniX]

338. What world are you living in?

[ProSense]

342. The one

"What world are you living in?"

...with a lot of these people:

Pew poll: Obama Job Approval Holds Steady, Economic Views Improve
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049114

Why, "what world are you living in"?

[L0oniX]

426. The one where a lot of "real" people are unemployed.

[ProSense]

432. Are you unemployed?

Do you speak for all unemployed people?

[L0oniX]

434. Do you speak for all employed people?

[ProSense]

435. No, I don't.

Are you unemployed?

[L0oniX]

436. I support my dissabled wife with a part time job making $275 a week.

[ProSense]

437. Good for you, and

all the best to you and your wife.

I'm unemployed.

[Skittles]

490. you seem to have a full-time job on DU

[Kolesar]

349. who do you think you are influencing with your flame bait?

Is this something you annoy unworldly teenagers with when you are out in the real world??

[EOTE]

117. That wealth has become even more insanely concentrated to the ultra wealthy under Obama is a red

herring? Christ, when Obama gets away with things from supposed Democrats that they would have crucified Bush for, it's no wonder he's been allowed to move so far to the right. You do realize that you're playing the part of an enabler, right? You're not doing Obama OR the country any favors.

[patrice]

403. Honest question, please don't attack me: "enabler"? Isn't what calls itself "the Left" PUSHING him

to the right by abandoning him.

He's a politician. ALL of the issues are his responsibility. When he looses support he moves to where his support is in order to accomplish whatever he can on any one or more off the other issues the supporters of which are NOT abandoning him.

He's supposed to get stuff done and he has to have support to get it done, so he goes where the support is. That's the way it works, whether it should or not. If you don't support, your issue(s) become less and less and less of a priority.

Do anti-Obama people around here actually think that attacking him, especially personally, and abandoning him and engaging in propaganda campaigns to get others to abandon him is going to result in making him do what they want?

That's so naive it's unbelievable, so I think they don't think that and this whole thing really is about how failure on Leftie issues is supposed to build a political base for what calls itself "the Left", that is . . . after it separates itself from the Libertarians they've been hitching a ride with. And the Libertarians will be just fine about all of that, because they'll get what they want out of it: 1. LGBT Civil Right to Marry (which reaches across all party lines) 2. the legalization of cannabis (which also reaches across all party lines) 3. a paralyzed government that interferes no further in the birthing of stateless "citizens of the archipelagos".

[Scuba]

26. Better not criticize those things or you'll be labelled a hateful racist.

[Octafish]

119. You sound like a Democrat.

Get with the program. Reagan good. Trickle down good. Bush good...

[HardTimes99]

120. Bush and Cheney are walking around free men and Cheney is even bragging about

his crimes.

That for me is the show-stopper (and one for which this OP can offer absolutely no defense of which I'm aware).

Goddamnit, I wouldn't care if Jesus H. Christ Himself came back to earth and were elected President. if He didn't enforce the law, I'd be agin' him (to steal a page from Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons):

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

[chervilant]

294. My goodness, but

the sound of crickets chirping is gettin' mighty loud...

(I don't expect you to get a rebuttal, either. I'll just sit here and have my snack while I wait...)

[HardTimes99]

309. Well, it's all part and parcel of normalizing two different

rules of law: one for the 1% and its lackies and lickspittles and one for the rest of us unwashed masses.

All criminal investigations of necessity must look backward. I felt my intelligence was being insulted when Obama uttered that bullshit. Now that his DNI has flat-out perjured himself to Congress, though, with no consequences, I figure the joke is on me (and all non-1% DU also).

Oh well, 'A nation of laws, not men' was a nice idea while it lasted. I can imagine an America that is governed by the rule of law, but sadly this ain't it.

[chervilant]

381. No, it isn't.

Do you suppose it's cognitive dissonance that keeps us sheeple from looking too closely at the man behind the curtain?

Speaking of sheeple, I just finished reading an article from a 1983 issue of Omni magazine about the radiation contamination of broad swaths of the Midwest. The AEC (precursor of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) suppressed or altered incontrovertible evidence that the fallout from nuclear testing had killed thousands of sheep in Utah, and caused hundreds of terminal cancers in the citizens who were encouraged to watch the "harmless" mushroom clouds, and often did so with their children, eating cinnamon rolls and drinking hot chocolate.

Politicians (and scientists--their partners in crime) have a long history of deceit, and a tendency towards patronizing the Hoi Polloi. Not for much longer, I'd wager.

[zeemike]

152. Embrace it or be cast as a Obama hating racist.

It is the only choice, because you are ether with him or against him...
It seems the left wants to adopt the tactics of the right.,,well hell it worked so well for Bush.

[SammyWinstonJack]

157. Hater!

[progressoid]

175. You're just an irrational racist hater.

Admit it.

[Skraxx]

182. I Can't Believe Obama Hasn't Singlehandedly Solved Every Problem Already!

Wealth inequality is so super easy to just reverse! All he has to do is bully pulpit some more and Congress will just snap right to it and pass legislation to solve the problem! Just like that!

[sulphurdunn]

335. Yea, Obama has

been working s-o-o-o-o hard to reverse income inequality, but he's been completely thwarted by the very, very bad minority party in Congress. Because of them his poor hands a tied tight.

[Skraxx]

450. Yeah! Screw Congress! Obama just Needs to Make His Own Laws!

Right, that's how it works, right?

[sulphurdunn]

461. It's called politics.

The President's job requires him to lean hard on Congress to get shit done. Obama does not do that. Are you clear about this? He does not do that! That's the problem. Most of us Obama critics just want him to to stop playing patty cake and bloody some noses even if he doesn't win. It sure beats compromising with people who refuse to compromise unless you're willing to pound the shit out of them.

[Skraxx]

476. Yeah, He's Not LEANING Hard Enough! That's All He Has Do! LEAN DAMMIT!! LEAN!

What's it like to live in such a naively simple world?

[sulphurdunn]

478. Unfortunately,

in the fairy tale world where you live the President of the United States is a noble progressive figure, thwarted by dark forces. In my naively simple world he is little more than a pitch man for the status quo, and in that world there is no possibility of electing the fairy tale prince you envision.

[Skraxx]

479. No, He's Not LEANING Dammit! That's All It Takes for A President To Get Anything Done!

That and a little spit and elbow grease! Right? He's not TRYING hard enough!!! Maybe he needs Tinkerbell to help him? What do you think?

[sulphurdunn]

480. I think he's trying

plenty hard to do what he's supposed to, and he's succeeding. Sadly, that has little to do with a progressive political agenda. He has Wall Street, DLC Democrats and the DOD to help him push his agenda. What the hell does he need with Tinkerbell?

[Skraxx]

481. Oh, Do Tell! You Mind Reader, You! What Is At The Gooey Center Of Obama's Dark Soul?

You seem to know so much about motivations and psychology! I assume you've followed and studied him his whole life to be able to discern that his motive and intent are imbued with such malignance! Why, your perspicacity is remarkable! You must be very successful in whatever you do seeing as how you are able to read people so thoroughly from a distance!

[sulphurdunn]

482. Are you really so naieve

as to believe that the arrangement of the American government has anything to do with Obama's biography? It doesn't matter who he is as a man. What matters is that he didn't get where he is by being a servant of the people, regardless of the populist image his handlers have created for him. It worked well enough to sucker chumps like me into voting for him and for chumps like you to still believe in him. I understand why you won't let go of your faith in this man, but it's time to wake up.

[Skraxx]

483. Yes! I, Like You, I Naively Believe That He JUST Isn't TRYING Hard Enough!! It's All About The

Leaning, right? Oh, and BULLY PULPIT!!

I mean, he's the President! He just has to snap his fingers and Congress does what he wants!

[L0oniX]

339. Why do you hate ProSense? ...uhm er I mean Obama?

[yurbud]

361. you're supposed to be grateful for the incremental good and not notice the meat cleaver of bad

[yurbud]

362. How can you complain about the Texas Chainsaw Massacre when Leatherface cut you some wood too?

[Arcanetrance]

7. Personally I do criticize the president and I feel that since I voted for him twice and he's

the leader of the country and the democratic party. It's my duty and right to speak up when he does something that I don't agree with. I'm not detracting from the things he accomplished nor do I hate him. But dissent should always be welcomed you want to see the end result of group think mentality look where the Republicans are as a party. I don't know about you but that's not where I want to wind up.

[vi5]

10. Just wait a few seconds

Someone will be along to clarify and tell you what is "legitimate" criticism and what is "illegitimate" criticism.

That's been happening a lot on here lately.

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. Your hatred is indefensible, quit trying to justify it

Yeah, it's pretty messed up to see an OP like this. A total failure of being a citizen when passion displaces reason.

[vi5]

15. You know what these posts remind me of?

Remember that editorial that was the laughingstock during Bush's second term? I forget who wrote it but it was basically "It must be so hard being president Bush. With a vision bordering on genius that nobody understands. Boo-Hoo. Poor him".

It's just as laughable when I see it on here directed at a Democratic president as it was back then.

[Orsino]

202. Apparently, a Democratic president isn't allowed to be a mixed bag.

A charismatic and marvelously talented politician must be using his abilities only for what a narrow spectrum of DU consider good.

He's not capable of fighting through the most implacable and corrupt obstructionism in American history to get some important and mildly progressive legislation passed while also tightening the grip of the surveillance society. If he dares to step out in favor of marriage equality, that somehow prevents his negotiating to ship jobs overseas. That he urges us to end our perpetual state of war must mean he didn't also put the banksters above the law.

And most importantly, a DUer can't praise some of his accomplishments while also vilifying his failings.

Fuck that. He's an adult, rather well aware of the bargains he's made. If he can take criticism of his policy, why can't we?

[vi5]

8. You're absolutely right.

I remember the Clinton and Carter presidencies. And nobody on the left criticized them. In fact they were all effusively glowing in their near constant praise of both men at the time of their presidencies. They never criticized them and never accused them of selling out, or moving the party rightward or anything of the sort.

This is all completely new territory, exclusive only to President Obama and it is clearly because he's black and the critics are racist. If only our fellow Democrats and liberals would hold back their criticism like they did for the previous 2 Democratic presidents. But they won't and it's clear that it's only because he's black. They never treated our white Democratic presidents that way at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Many of us were very, very angry at Clinton

His worship of Wall Street, repeal of Glass-Steagall, unparalleled expansion of devastating "free" trade agreements, etc.

At the time, we were told we were haters, that we should STFU.

And here we are.

[vi5]

17. Psssst.....

I was being sarcastic. I left out the tag because I wanted to see the results.

[tblue]

186. You sly little fox you.

This whole discussion is heartbreaking. I am just as black as Obama and he drives me crazy. Every time he's at a crossroads, I get my hopes up, and 9 out of 10 times he goes the direction I was so hoping he wouldn't. So yes, that makes me a racist.

I have relatives who are black and VERY liberal. They ADORE President Obama and they complain that people criticize him. They actually say, "I know he wants what I want and doesn't want to do what he does." I have learned not to engage. It's sad really.

[graham4anything]

35. Elizabeth Warren's long career in the senate 100% depends on supporting Obama. You do realize that,

right?

Do you think BushPaulfamilyinc will give her any bit of speaking time if the party is naderized in the coming years?

Not to mention, what power will Warren have (she who didn't even vote for Jimmy Carter back then), in deciding the
change of SCOTUS from 4 to 5 to 5 to 4 is she is just senator in the minority party, and they pick
another AlitoScaliaRoberts to the court?

Remember, united we stand
divided we fall

and btw, President Obama always looks 20 steps ahead, personally, I think the deck of the crap is being swept clean
so that the next democratic president won't have to deal with this rubbish.

when that happens, remember to thank President Obama for his foresight in seeing steps ahead.

and being that I trust you to really care about Warren, her strength is with the President Obama agenda,
NOT the President Jeb/Paul agenda

just like Dr. King and LBJ worked side by side to ram through the legislation even if it took 100% of his capital to do so,
he did it while others just talked and dreamed of it eventually happening, LBJ did.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Only 4 years in the Senate for Warren, sorry.

But President Warren won't be filling her White House with bankers, I guarantee it.

[graham4anything]

48. She can only win with Barack Obama's voters. Which is why HE won in 2008.

The next president will be a woman, and will need the 95% of the democratic party that supports both
the President and Hillary and Bill.

without those voters, please tell where one would get any electoral votes at all?

[cali]

58. They aren't HIS voters. That's absurd. And incredibly insulting.

Vermont voters gave Obama an even bigger winning margin than MA voters, but we aren't Barack Obama's voters.

[graham4anything]

62. Yes they are. When 95% of the President Obama voters support him and Hillary,

tell me what motiviation anyone would have if the other people running were running against him?
Maybe if it was a Deval Patrick and Cory Booker as VP.

It's not like ONE BushPaulfamily voter would vote for Elizabeth Warren, so please tell me, where are the votes
coming from?
It would be another Dukakis, Mondale, Goldwater.

So why not get realistic and see things for what they are.

we saw what happened in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004

all those who stand with Rand won't vote for any democratic candidate.

and thanks to Ralph, NO 3rd party will ever be considered in the democratic party

[JW2020]

79. If there were no term limits

Would you like to see Obama as maybe a 5 term President or maybe 6 term President?

[graham4anything]

90. I want to see President Hillary Clinton in 2017-2018 name him to the US Supreme Court

and I want to see Michelle defeat Kirk in 2016 in Illionois.

and I want to see Elizabeth Warren be senior senator from Mass. for 32 years

President Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren were side by side the other day for Senator to be Ed Markey, who MUST win on Tuesday.
A loss is no option.

and Michelle Obama become President in 2024 and 2028
at which point at some time, the 22nd amendment will be gotten rid of as the founding fathers never of course
wanted any term limits at all.

Whenever John Roberts retires, then Justice Obama can be Chief Justice Obama
and solidify every single thing on his agenda.

[JW2020]

95. But you always say

The only reason you want Hillary in 2016 and Michelle in WHENEVER is because you want them to continue Obama's legacy. Why not just have Obama serve for 6 more terms?

[graham4anything]

97. SCOTUS in 2018 is far more important to fill the Thurgood Marshall seat that never was.

Thanks and conversation over.

[JW2020]

103. You didn't answer my question

Like i said, you have posted that you want Hillary and Michelle in the Whitehouse for no other purpose than to fulfill Obama's legacy. Why not just have Obama serve for 6 more terms?

[hughee99]

225. If there's one think you can be absolutely sure of, Hillary Clinton will NEVER

get through a senate confirmation for the SC. I don't think she'll run in 2016, though I think it's possible. I don't think she'll win the primary in 2016, though I think it's a remote possibility, but the next president, if it isn't her, will NEVER spend the tremendous amount of political capitol necessary to get a near 70 year old Hillary Clinton, one of the most polarizing figures of the last 2 decades, onto the Supreme Court.

[graham4anything]

228. you misread. President Hillary will nominate Barack Obama to the US Supreme Court in 2017-18.

which is why this order made a lot more sense than the other order
(Obama44, Hillary45).

[hughee99]

232. My apologies.

I don't think Clinton will spend the political capitol necessary to get Obama on the SC, but I'll admit the chance of him reaching the court someday are far better (though still very small).

[pocoloco]

141. LOL

Jeb gonna get a sex change???

[graham4anything]

193. The next president will be a democratic president. The smear jobs are not resonating.

and it is about 2013-2014-2015.

2016 will be a landslide.

[frazzled]

211. Why not? She filled the CFPB with bankers

As the new federal consumer watchdog agency takes shape, Wall Street might see a few familiar faces on its roster.

Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard University law professor who is setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, announced her latest string of hires on Thursday, including former managing directors at Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley.

Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers from abuses in the lending industry. Now the bureau is turning to former members of the industry to help it police banks, credit card companies and mortgage lenders.

(...)

The bureau’s hires announced Thursday include Rajeev Date, the former Deutsche Bank managing director. Mr. Date, who also worked at Capital One Financial as a senior vice president, will be the bureau’s associate director for research, markets and regulations.

“Raj Date and his team bring a wealth of experience in the financial services industry, government, nonprofits, community banking and academia,” Ms. Warren said.

Ms. Warren also hired Elizabeth Vale, a Morgan Stanley managing director who was vice president and portfolio manager at Philadelphia National Bank. Her industry experience will come in handy — she will serve as a liaison to community banks and credit unions.

Ms. Warren’s hires also include a former financial industry lawyer, a former senior employee at the mortgage-finance giant Freddie Mac and Corey Stone, who once was the chairman of Start Community Bank in New Haven, Conn.

(...)

A consumer protection bureau might seem like an unlikely place for former bankers to land, but Ms. Warren has made an effort to reach out to Wall Street. Since taking the job in September, she has met with several top bankers, including Jamie Dimon, Vikram S. Pandit and James P. Gorman, the chief executives of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, respectively.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/consumer-watchdog-hires-former-bankers/

C'mon: Elizabeth Warren has met with and hired as many if not more Wall Street bankers than Obama. What is with this Messiah complex? The next Messiah will be better than the previous Messiah. Stop looking for heroes (or heroines) and stop tarring one individual while whitewashing the next.

Obama did not create Wall Street or initiate the inequality that exists in the country today and he can't fix it overnight. Elizabeth Warren will not fix it with a wave of her fairy wand, either. It took four decades to incrementally reach the place we are now. It will take at least four decades to incrementally transform it. If you care about EW, you should care about Obama as well. They're both working, however glacially it may appear, toward the same goal.

[MannyGoldstein]

391. Interesting points.

She has hired a number of bankers, but she does go after them with gusto. For example, she's pushing to charge the banks a $83 billion a year to make up for the money they make because investors know that they're too big to fail. In any conceivable version of our universe, can you imagine Obama proposing that?

As to the speed of change - whenever things have gotten to this level in the past, as far as I've seen, change happens quick. For example, in 1928, a conservative won the presidency in a landslide. Four years later we got the New Deal.

Also in mid 1920s, Germany was the most Liberal country in the world, the most tolerant of Jews in Europe. Then four years later...

The real question: are we America in the early 1930s, are are we Germany? I'm scared to find out, but we *will* find out.

[malokvale77]

346. Not a banker one.

I don't think she likes them much.

[SomethingFishy]

164. Really? Perhaps you missed this:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sen-warren-opposes-obamas-nominee-tra

If her career "depends" on her support of Obama is she committing career suicide by poutraging over this trivial matter?

I asked the President's nominee to be Trade Representative -- Michael Froman - three questions: First, would he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text? Or second, if not, would he commit to releasing just a scrubbed version of the bracketed text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision. (Note: Even the Bush Administration put out the scrubbed version during negotiations around the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.)

Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made to the trade office's outside advisors. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some labor and NGO representatives too. But there is no transparency around who gets what information and whether they all see the same things, and I think that's a real problem.
?
Mr. Froman's response was clear: No, no, no. He will not commit to make this information available so the public can track what is going on.

I am voting against Mr. Froman's nomination later today because I believe we need a new direction from the Trade Representative -- A direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. The American people have the right to know more about the negotiations that will have dramatic impact on the future of the American economy. And that will have a dramatic impact on our working men and women, on the environment, on the Internet.

[Jakes Progress]

300. Should be the other way around.

She has shown ever indication of standing up for people over banks and corporations. Obama has done the opposite.

I will take her advice about him more than his about her. She is more trustworthy as evident in her actions.

[alarimer]

315. No, Warren is a TRUE progressive, unlike that corporatist Obama.

She likely won't be President because our major parties and their leaders are in thrall to corporate money. Get the corporate money and more true progressives in there and our country might start to right itself.

The problem is Obama's coziness with Wall Street. Also for every Democrat since McGovern.

[ProSense]

41. More

Many of us were very, very angry at Clinton

His worship of Wall Street, repeal of Glass-Steagall, unparalleled expansion of devastating "free" trade agreements, etc.

At the time, we were told we were haters, that we should STFU.

...red herrings and straw men. No one is saying "STFU."

Criticizing Clinton (or Obama) for specific policies is one thing, trying to negate his entire Presidency by claiming he has done nothing or dismissing most of what he has accomplished is something entirely different.

Do you agree with the point of the diary posted?

[davidpdx]

64. I think there are plenty of things to be angry at about Clinton

Glass-Steagall being among the worst, with DOMA and don't ask don't tell way up the list as well.

Obama has gotten a lot of shit based on things done by Clinton and Bush that it was expected he could snap his fingers and undue. The same for the closing of Gitmo and federal benefits for GLBT. Reversing everything bad that the last two presidents did (and again Clinton made his mistakes as well, Bush on the other hand was just rotten) will take time. Then add in the NSA thing. How many of these have to be done through an act of Congress? Meanwhile how many more times will the House vote to repeal 'Obamacare' (I really hate calling it that).

[Vanje]

188. NAFTA

Clinton was the author of that world-destabilizing, exploitative policy. Maybe the worst this that ever happened to the 99% worldwide.

I havnt quite forgiven Gore for aggressively pimping that imperialistic shit-wad of a policy, while he was Clinton's Veep.

[davidpdx]

355. I personally don't think NAFTA was among the worst

that was started under Bush Sr. and finished under Clinton. Mexico may have gained some jobs temporarily, but once China opened their market up it didn't matter much because Chinese labor is much cheaper than labor in Mexico.

Gore ended up paying a hefty price in the end as Clinton's VP and by not using Clinton in his campaign. If he had there is no doubt in my mind he would have won.

[Major Hogwash]

91. Was that at the DU forum where you were told that you were haters?

I didn't think so.

[H2O Man]

19. Respectfully disagree.

It's almost too easy to demonstrate how inaccurate your claims about Carter and Clinton are. I suspect that everyone old enough remembers Senator Ted Kennedy, for example, running against Jimmy Carter in the Democratic primaries in 1980. That would hardly meet the definition of "effusively glowing in near constant praise" now, would it?

[vi5]

20. Psssst...

See above.

[H2O Man]

28. You are good.

Very good!

[graham4anything]

37. The more I think of 1980, the more I wonder

was there an underbelly like the current BushRandfamilyinc to promote dissention, and to actually
like was done in 2000 with Nader, make Teddy think it was a sure thing instead of waiting for another time
another place.

Because of all the times for Teddy to run, the one and only time was the one and only wrong time.

[patrice]

406. THAT shit happens. DINOs are nothing new. nt

[NCTraveler]

22. That is how sarcasm is done.

I appreciate well written sarcasm, it is almost a lost art.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. Do you really mean that or....

[Bobbie Jo]

398. That is how gratuitous exaggeration is done.

I appreciate well written sarcasm as well, this isn't it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

36. That was good

[Enrique]

98. total revisionist history

the left was upset with Clinton enough that Ralph Nader ran against him in 1996 and against Gore in 2000, with significant support.

Sometimes the support for Obama resembles the right-wing criticism of him, both based on fantasy.

[vi5]

136. Uh......

Read above. It was total sarcasm on my part.

The sad thing is that it is hard to tell around here any more.

Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in the primary.
Nader ran against Clinton and Gore in the GE, and Bradley ran against Gore from the left in the primary.

Nobody ran against Obama in the primary.

[Enrique]

148. oh ok

yes it is very hard to tell, I have heard exactly what you wrote, but meant seriously, more than once.

[Beacool]

144. Nobody on the Left criticized Clinton???????????

On what planet have you been? They are still bashing him.

[vi5]

161. Kidding

I'm kidding.

I'm beginning to think leaving out the sarcasm tag was a mistake.

But it's pretty telling to me how many people thought it was serious. Which kind of proves my/our point on the "defend at all costs" crowd.

[Beacool]

173. Well, given the highly volatile feelings of some over this issue,

it's hard to tell who is being sarcastic or serious.

[Vanje]

184. Are you kidding!!??

Carter got voted out of office with approval ratings lower than the floor.
Clinton got IMPEACHED, and even got a cold shoulder from his administration pard, Gore who was running for office. The Gore campain avoided even mentioning Clinton. He even chose the Anti-Clinton (Leiberman) for his running mate.

You didnt read about it on DU, though. So there IS that.

[AgingAmerican]

301. Obama's actions are not Clintons actions

I don't remember any grand bargains from Clinton where the republicans got 98% of what they wanted and the Dems got token crumbs.

I also do not recall any massive domestic spy programs being implemented under Clinton.

[vi5]

311. I was being sarcastic, but that's my point exactly

Clinton was rightfully lambasted from the left for things like NAFTA and welfare reform and the failed health insurance plan.

And Obama has out "grand bargained" and pandered to Republicans way more than Clinton did on many issues.

Yet somehow criticizing Obama is off limits for so many people on here.

Oh wait I'm sorry, criticism is o.k. by them as long as it's what they deem "legitimate" criticism. And apparently they get to decide what that entails. Which lately it seems like the only allowable "legitimate" criticism for some would be criticizing Obama for loving America too much, or being too good for us.

[leeroysphitz]

9. Bull. n/t

[The Link]

11. I know it makes it easier for people that worship the guy to think everyone hates him.

I just don't think he is very good. He's ok on a few issues. He is severely lacking in others. I don't love him...I don't hate him. I don't think he is a great President. I don't think he is a horrible President.

Are there people that hate him? Sure. I hated Bush with a passion.

[JW2020]

34. He reminds me of milquetoast.

He came in with a roar and then completely whiffed. Then his backroom deals became all too apparent when he caved to Wall Street.

[truebluegreen]

137. "whiffed"

Excellent description. The previous administration served up a fastball right over the plate....

[AgingAmerican]

303. This is sadly true

His dealings with the republicans have made him look very weak.

[choie]

18. Not only is it bullshit and disgusting

But it's insulting to those DUers who have valid reasons to criticize Obama. Are you trying to add racism to Godwin's law?

[ProSense]

30. Right,

"But it's insulting to those DUers who have valid reasons to criticize Obama."

...because the OP was about "valid" criticism?

Do you agree with the premise of the the diary cited?

Claiming the OP is "bullshit and disgusting" is simply obfuscation. You don't want to address the point made so you decide that it's an attack on "valid" criticism.

[JaneyVee]

25. Can't even mention Obama's legacy without mentioning UNPRECEDENTED REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION

For example:

BLOCKED! American Jobs Act: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20118915-503544.html

BLOCKED! Veterans Jobs Act: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57517160/senate-gop-blocks-veterans-jobs-bill/

BLOCKED! Increase in Veterans Benefits: http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17539-the-scum-of-the-earth-gop-senator-blocks-bill-to-increase-benefits-for-veterans

BLOCKED! Anti-Outsourcing Bill: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-19/senate-republicans-block-democrats-anti-outsourcing-plan.html

Those 4 items alone would have this economy in over-drive.

[HappyMe]

50. People do tend to brush the

obstruction under the rug. Criticism is one thing, but for a few, he can't do a damn thing right.

It will be interesting to see is IF Hillary runs and on the outside chance she wins, will people run her through the same meat grinder.

[truebluegreen]

145. I doubt there is anyone here prepared to overlook the outrageous behavior

of the Republicans. But that doesn't make everything Obama has done "right"...between his appointments, his priorities, his policies--enacted or not--he has done a lot that disappoints me.

And yes, I campaigned and voted for him twice, and would again, considering the alternative. Is that how you define "hate"?

[HappyMe]

153. I didn't say anything in my post about "hate".

Nor did I say everything Obama has done is absolutely right.

[truebluegreen]

178. My apologies.

[markpkessinger]

422. But we can all celebrate . . .

. . . the President's successful nomination of Michael Forman as U.S. Trade Representative -- the man who has refused to commit to releasing critical classified text from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Change we can believe in, right?

[aikoaiko]

31. I think race has very little to do with it.

The republicans will do anything to tear down a Democratic president.

And Democrats and other leftists will always criticize a Democratic president for compromising or capitulating (which to a point is necessary from time to time).

[Major Hogwash]

74. Come visit me some time.

I'll learn ya a thing or two about racism and what they think of President Obama.

They said he was a shifty-eyed nigger who lies about everything.
The GOP thrives on hate here.

Some of the state representatives even used that type of language in the state legislature when they were discussing the state's healthcare exchange just this past session!!

And they have said things much worse than that!!!

[aikoaiko]

237. Right, but they said nearly the same things about Bill Clintoon

Adulterer, shifty-eyed lying Bill Clinton and then opposed him and his policies vehemently.

They oppose anyone or anything progressive. The derogatory names just change with the person.

Its not any worse for Obama than for Bill, IMO.

[HooptieWagon]

314. Of course it doesn't.

Almost every Democrat, and probably all of DU, voted for Obama...therefore race was not an issue. It only arises now because the BOG is so desparate to find an excuse for the POTUS's over-reaching surveillence program, which even Dick Cheney supports, that they are scraping the bottom of the barrell and have resorted to playing the race card. It would be truely laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic. Its a huge slap in the face to real victims of racial prejudice. Nice job, BOGers...you've achieved a new low.

[SidDithers]

33. DU rec...nt

Sid

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

40. People do tend to hate being spied upon, especially Americans

FYI

[Puzzledtraveller]

54. +1

[NOLALady]

109. Americans hate to be spied upon.

But some Americans have been spied upon for so long, its considered SOP.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

130. Exactly

Now that the government is doing it on all Americans, in secrecy, some folks are understandably pretty upset.

[Major Hogwash]

133. American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, America's Got Talent, America's Funniest Home Videos

Yeah, we Americans hate it when someone watches us.

[truebluegreen]

150. "watches" = "spying"?

[Major Hogwash]

159. Well, we're not Germans. We're Americans!

Stasi, stasi, stasi.

Do a search here for how many times that word has been used in the last week at the good ol' American DU forum!!

[truebluegreen]

364. Well, that made my head spin.

You equated watching American Idol with being spied on, then turned around and at least implied that anyone who objects to the spying is equating the NSA with the Stasi, which you find uproariously funny.

Do I have that straight? 'Cause I just wanted to let you know that I object to the first characterization; endorse the second, at least in potential; and didn't find either one funny. In fact, it was hogwash.

[cali]

43. This is such garbage:

"Imagine if any of the other Democratic candidates had succeeded Bush, and did half what Obama has done, including passing health care reform. He/she would have been hailed as one of the greatest Presidents ever".

Of course neither of us can prove that either way, which is convenient for you. If Hillary had won, and followed precisely the same policy path as Obama? Are you actually suggesting that she wouldn't get the same kind of criticism? Bullshit. There's masses of evidence to suggest she would have. Same with others.

YOU don't want to deal with the fact that many on the left disagree with the policies of the President. You're so personally invested that that's the sad lens you see through.

Are there people on the left who hate the President? Yes, but they're a minority, just like the shills and apologists and braindead partisans are a minority.

disgusting.

[The Link]

46. Shit, if Hillary did the exact same things, the criticism would be 10 fold harsher.

[cali]

49. I tend to agree with that.

[markiv]

96. but that would be mysogynistic

it's white males like John Kerry or John Edwards that escape all criticism

[Vanje]

190. Oh? Re: John Edwards

Maybe you havn't noticed, but his popularity has waned a bit.

[HappyMe]

210. John Edwards was

all but tarred and feathered, and rightly so.

Any criticism of Hillary would be quickly stomped on as misogyny and probably ageism too.

[frylock]

206. as has been pointed out, we would all be painted as mysoginistic ageists..

for any criticism of Hillary Clinton.

[totodeinhere]

209. You are correct. Ever since she became first lady in 1989 Hillary Clinton

has been the subject of virulence and hatefulness coming from many on the right. Some of it abated once Barack Obama became president because the right was trying to play Clinton and Obama off against each other. But you better believe that if Clinton runs in 2016 anti-Clinton hate will be back with a vengeance. Hillary Clinton is hated by the right just as much if not more than Barack Obama is.

[xchrom]

52. this is, perhaps, the single best example of real Obama Derangement Syndrome ever posted.

well done

[ProSense]

56. You're right

"this is, perhaps, the single best example of real Obama Derangement Syndrome ever posted."

...because that doesn't mean what you think it does, but it's definitely displayed here.

[graham4anything]

63. +1

[The Link]

59. Its the result of worshipping a person rather than maintaining a set of ideals.

[xchrom]

60. or rationality. nt

[MuseRider]

65. Agreed xchrom

Very little pisses me off more than to be called a racist.

I think most people are perfectly aware that it is OK to differ and even dislike a leader in spite of their race, hair color or handedness.

This is absolute bullshit and as offensive as can be.

[OrwellwasRight]

306. Perhaps "most people"

but apparently not "most people" on DU. I tried alerting on one of these hateful "everyone who doesn't worship Obama is a racist" threads (only the second alert I have every hit in 9 years on DU), and not one person voted to hide.

The only comments were "pin it, it's a great post," and "Nobody was called out individually as a racist so it's OK." And bullshit like that.

I really feel this shit is going to lead a a very large purge. I think the charge of racism is petty, vindictive, destructive, and juvenile. If the "Obama is perfect" crowd doesn't have a better comeback to our valid criticisms than to call us racist, this party is on the downhill slide to the point of no return.

DU is about reasoned debate, not petulant ad hominem. I have to say I am a little shocked the mods aren't locking these threads. I think they would have back in the day.

[MuseRider]

318. I agree.

It is also incorrect to say that most people who "bash" *criticize* Obama hate him and that it is either racism or hatred.

I have never hated him but was terribly unhappy with him and suspicious of some of his claims before his first election. Still I can say I have never hated him. How could I, I don't know him.

I also think the vast majority of people on here who "bash" *criticize* him want him to do better. We all would really love to be able to say, "Look at that! That is fabulous! Wow! Good for Obama!"

IOW, this is one of the most ridiculous, insensitive, mean spirited and clueless threads I have seen and there have been plenty of them.

We can't debate anything here anymore and reasoned discussion has been gone for a long long time. It is terribly sad.

There are certainly people who hate Obama and certainly there are racists against him but I beg to differ with this as a blanket comment here on DU with the assumption that there are people here who fall into that category, enough so that there needs to be a thread about it.

You are so right about this, " If the "Obama is perfect" crowd doesn't have a better comeback to our valid criticisms than to call us racist, this party is on the downhill slide to the point of no return." When you have nothing else you call names.

Edit to add this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023057060

I actually hate this. HATE it. I don't hate Obama for it. I don't care for him as the president much, in fact I am downright upset with him being there these days. Still, what on dogs green earth would this have to do with hating the man or being a racist?

I guess some people just have trouble sorting through emotions.

[Notafraidtoo]

420. I agree. You said it best.

Obama is not perfect,this is a Democracy its our job to hold our leaders feet to the fire on issues we don't agree with,If you are just going to worship leaders you like and not call them out when you think they are wrong why bother participating in Democracy seems like you would be just as happy with a charismatic king.

I wonder if the people who call those that are participating in Democracy Racist are in agreement with Obama 100% of the time,I don't know how thats even possible and still be able to call ones self a progressive.


I had enough of being called a terrorist sympathizer when i criticized Bush now i am a Racist for Criticizing Obama,people are fucked up.

[Major Hogwash]

82. Where do you live?

If you don't think racism exists, it must be some dream world you've concocted in your head.

[Monkie]

99. some of those complaining about racism also cheerlead the droning of innocent muslims

and manage to do so without their head actually exploding.
racisms is a stain on society, it is disgusting, it must be faced head on, but i for one do not appreciate being smeared with this brush by some of the same people that show no care at all for people who are not americans.

[Major Hogwash]

105. Prosense is not cheerleading a damned thing.

Not even the droning of innocent muslims.

[Monkie]

115. i did not mention prosense, why are you speaking for prosense?

it is true that in a topic about the disgusting and illegal use of drones the only thing prosense was interested in was pointing out that bush killed more muslims with drones than obama did, and when called out on this refused to explain or "walk back" or qualify that statement, but prosense is not the only one, there is at least one other person agreeing that criticism of obama is based on racism while at the same time glibly excusing the illegal droning of muslims without seeming to stop and think that muslims are human beings and have the same rights as all of us do, which i think is pretty much text-book racism?

[Major Hogwash]

126. Really? It's illegal now? Sez who? YOU!!!

Which I think is pretty Prosense funny since Prosense this isn't about Prosense, but I'm going to Prosense complain about Prosense while denying that I Prosense am talking in a thread started by Prosense that Prosense is racist because Prosense it is illegal because I Prosense said so!!

So, Prosense!!

[Monkie]

143. i'm sorry, but neither obama, or prosense, get to decide international law

its really quite simple, it is the law for a reason, the law is not something individual people, or countries, get to decide for themselves.

my original post was a general point i made, without attacking any people personally, you chose to make it about prosense, and i responded by pointing out how wrong you were, crucial difference.

[HardTimes99]

168. Let me be sure I understand: you maintain that the drone strikes are 'legal'? If so, upon what

statutory authority do you base that claim? N.B. That toady-dictator Musharraf is no longer in power and has not been for 5 years.

[Major Hogwash]

174. Call your congressman right now!! OMG!!!!!

See what he or she has to tell you, sport.

[Monkie]

238. so you complain about racism and laugh at illegal drone strikes on muslims

things are becoming much clearer thankyou.
and to clarify, neither you, nor prosense, the president of the US, nor your congressman or woman get to decide what is international law.
you obey international law or you are a criminal, it is really quite simple.
and in this particular case, the "double tapping" that is a regular feature of these drone strikes is a war crime, causing the death of someone while committing a war crime is a federal offense for which the death penalty can be sought.

[patrice]

410. I, for one, am glad to see mention of international law, especially if it also relates to

wide-open private assault weapons markets all over the world, developed by U.S. gun manufacturers and protected by their corporate personhood in Congress - which weapons are, of course, the source of much suffering and death and political instability for which indigenous leaders in said countries invoke treaties with the U.S. creating at least the latent possibility of drone programs, e.g. Mali.

A related example: How do you suppose someone like Saddam Hussein established his creds as a killer well enough for the CIA to take notice and later have Rumsfeld hang a star on his ass? Afterall, SH could not have expected to be thought of as a native Iraqi leader if the guns he supplied to the Bathists early on had come directly from Uncle Sam. What does international law have to say about that kind of situation? Not much.

I'm glad, nonetheless, to see mention of international law here anyway, even though I'd bet you have some pretty strange "bedfellows" amongst the anti-drone activists around you, many of whom, from the Randite part of that spectrum, also HATE the World Court and the U.N. and LOVE wide-open private, make that SECRET, assault weapons markets all over the world.

[deurbano]

127. Very important (and sad) point.

The drone policy is one of the most tragic, disappointing, sad, incomprehensible (ethically-speaking), horrific policies of this administration... and something I assumed we were voting AGAINST (when electing this Democratic president). This is a choice HE made, not the obstructionist Congress.

[Monkie]

147. it is tragic, and owned wholly by obama as you say

and one would think obama would have a better grasp of ethics than the average man or woman.
was it not obama's own grandfather that was tortured by the state?

[HardTimes99]

158. The 17th-Century French wit La Rochefoucauld quipped that

"Hypocrisy is the tribute Vice pays to Virtue."

You have nailed it shut, my friend! Anyone who currently supports or has supported the racist War on Terror had better not use the R-word about me in my presence!

[Monkie]

170. the french were often ahead of the times

and they had some pretty revolting peasants!

[westerebus]

89. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!

[winter is coming]

139. ^^ Thread win. n/t

[Zoeisright]

278. What a rude post.

I usually like your thoughts, but not today. Telling people they have some sort of mental illness because of their stance on issues is ignorant and cruel.

[BrotherIvan]

316. In a post calling people racists...

[FreeState]

379. +1 n/t

[99Forever]

57. Piffle.

[NCTraveler]

61. You really think if Clinton passed the ACA he would be praised as one of the greatest...

Presidents by the left. Here is a news flash for you. Obama would himself be trashing Clinton if he passed it. Look at how he talked about it on the campaign trail. At one point in time Obama himself was against what the ACA is today. How you don't see this is beyond me. Your op is bunk. Obama has become Clinton the 2nd. Many of us were hoping he would leave the Clinton mold behind. He has fully embraced it. He will be remembered just as fondly as Clinton is today. It is funny that I have seen a couple of legacy ops posted about Obama lately. Some in the fan club seem to be getting very concerned. Ease your mind. Americans are very forgiving of Presidents within just years after they leave office. I do not criticize him due to race. I criticize him because he has done many stupid things. After the campaign ended, he became more of a centrist/righty on an many issues than Clinton himself. Hard to do and still call yourself a democrat.

I want to add that he has done a number of wonderful things. Things I recognize and have praised him on. Often in your ops. But when you tote this bs out you need to be informed that it is not approved verbiage from the Office of Propaganda. It will not bring about your superiors desired results. Divide and conquer isn't the approach you should go with.

[markiv]

66. I always knew that electing the first african american president was proof of how racist

we all are

how?

because everything is proof of that

[NRaleighLiberal]

67. Utter and absolute bullshit. This isn't American Idol.

I actually find this a very disappointing OP, ProSense. It is a very low blow.

[ProSense]

77. Spare me. You're

"Utter and absolute bullshit. This isn't American Idol."

...writing the point off as "This isn't American Idol" as if that's a valid point.

Given that I made a specific point and provided a specific example, being dismissive is simply an attempt to avoid the point.

Hell, you can go over to the diary and see actual responses from people who have criticized Obama often, but who think the diary is BS.

[NRaleighLiberal]

78. like I said....this is an extremely disappointing OP to read - I expect you to be above this.

[ProSense]

80. More obfuscation. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

305. It's bottom feeding

nt

[Demo_Chris]

68. When you are forced to attack the imaginary motivations of critics you have nothing left...

President Obama is an extremely charismatic man. He's intelligent, handsome, and a fantastic speaker. Beyond this, if you are a liberal at any rate, there is not much positive to say. The guy is a serial liar, and in every possible way a disaster -- both for our party and for anyone who believes in civil rights and a government restrained by laws. It is becoming increasingly difficult to point to any major policy on which he has not lied, or any liberal position he actually holds.

Simply put, President Obama is W without the smirk. The same motivations, same lies, same disregard for the constitution and civil rights, same indifference to the poor and desperate. That they are virtually identical should come as no surprise; both men work for the same small group of people.

I do not say these things because I am lost in a maze of irratrional hatred for the man. I don't hate him at all. I don't even dislike him. The only bitterness I feel is directed at myself for falling for it.

It won't happen again.

[ProSense]

71. Yes,

"President Obama is an extremely charismatic man. He's intelligent, handsome, and a fantastic speaker. Beyond this, if you are a liberal at any rate, there is not much positive to say...Simply put, President Obama is W without the smirk. "

...Obama is nice and he's Bush.

Ludicrous.

[Demo_Chris]

134. Well, there are differences...

For example, when Bush wanted to stimulate the economy he sent the money straight to the American people, while Obama bypassed that step and handed it to the bankers for their bonuses. Nor do I recall President Bush repeatedly urging Congress to destroy Social Security -- in fact he fought for the largest expansions in non-discretionary entitlement spending in fifty years (medicare part D comes to mind among others). I also do not recall President Bush claiming that he had the power to kill any American citizen he wanted, any time and anywhere, on his own whim, secretly, without any judicial or Congressional oversight, and with zero due process of law.

You see some vast difference between the two. You see a good cop and a bad, where I just see two cops. Both work for the exact same people -- and had Romney actually won he would have as well. If you want to be President you do what your corporate owners at Exxon and Goldman and Lockheed and Monsanto and UnitedHealth tell you.

[Puzzledtraveller]

87. and for me I wish it wasn't the case

I would like nothing more than to be able to back him and his record up but I have gave up on that. Just in my own life my daily struggles are such that I do not expect things to improve. I am fully aware of republican obstructionism but it cannot excuse everything.

[markiv]

69. All criticism of Obama should be a hate crime

because we all know that's what it really is

[JW2020]

73. Criticism of Obama is already considered a thought crime

you're correct why not go the full measure.

[markiv]

85. the answer to thought crime (crimethink) is crimestop

crimestop is the solution to crimethink

crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

[Monkie]

107. The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought

its a shame orwell is not around to write about the american empire

[markiv]

112. why? he already did

the book 1984 WAS directed at the American empire unfolding after WWII

Airstrip One - Formally called England. This term demonstrates Orwell's distain for American influence Europe. It seems that Oceania (America, England, South America, Australia) looks upon Britain as little more than an ‘airstrip’ ... a launching ground into the European theater of war. It appears that Orwell was predicting the minor role that England would play in the global politics of the future.


Orwell wasnt prophetic, he was just a very skilled observer, in things that really havent changed

power was/is truth, in 1948, 1984, and 2013

doesnt matter when or where

[Monkie]

121. i was just struck by the beautiful agony of those words

good point about the difference between a skilled observer and a prophet.
heeding the words of a skilled observer makes more sense than worshiping prophets.
when i first started reading the sci-fi of philip k. dick he was quite a obscure author, but the times seem to have caught up with him.

[ProSense]

86. If you need my permission to criticize Obama, go ahead

Feel free to also address the point of the diary, which has nothing to do with constructive and valid criticism.

The defensive stram men being offered up are hilarious.

[treestar]

75. Wow Elizabeth Warren does not think there is a magic wand

And is not an Obama-hater.

[ucrdem]

76. Strong rec and 2 points:

1 - Dissenters, please at least read the thread title. ProSense is not saying it's all about race. It's all about hate and theres no shortage of that:

It's racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy, but a lot of it is based on race, even the envy.

2 - A few weeks back a poster asked a question I couldn't answer: if mainstream and alternative media are both unreliable, what would I consider a reliable source of political news? Well, I figured out the answer and it's right here on DU, namely ProSense, who can always be trusted to to find the needle in the haystack and post a link to it before the MSM turns the on lights in the studio. As for racism, ProSense has twice put it very diplomatically, so I'll put it more bluntly: if you think it has nothing to do with race, then it does.

[quinnox]

81. whoa, if Obama is starting to lose Daily KOS, a site that was basically a huge fan site of his,

then you know something is wrong. Daily KOS was like the DU BOG in their devotion to Obama. If they are beginning to take off the blinders and question these policies, that is surprising and a bad sign for the president.

[markiv]

88. no, Daily KOS is infected with crimethink

there must be a 2 minutes hate for daily KOS

[spanone]

84. k&r...

[Whisp]

93. Thankyou, Prosense!

[BeyondGeography]

94. IMO, Obama's critics here are mostly sincere, as are his defenders

Far as I can discern from an Internet message board. There are some who have never gotten over him defeating Hillary, but they are relatively few in number and real easy to identify. Harder for me to take are the tinfoilers who never accept anything that people in authority say and can not be reasoned with.

But I think we need to accept that people with whom we disagree are acting in good conscience far more often than not. Even if it's hard to digest sometimes.

Now is clearly one of those times. When the Snowden thing broke, I did not want to hear about it, frankly. The President had been previously raked over the coals for utter bullshit, Benghazi/IRS/AP, a clear campaign to me at least that, having failed to defeat him in an election, his opponents were going to undermine him with innuendo.

My views have evolved. As much as I continue to see Snowden and Greenwald as partisans first, the NSA's potential to overreach is a real issue, and they have done a service by bringing it to the fore, even if they have mangled some key details and Snowden himself has gone off the rails by flipping secrets to foreign governments. Technology will continue to get exponentially more powerful and there is a lot of money to be made from fear. It's heartbreaking to see billions go into bureaucratic surveillance empire building when so many programs that directly benefit people are hurting for resources.

But, here's where it gets pear-shaped. I continue to believe in the personal integrity and the judgment of Barack Obama. He is not infallible, but I think he will end up in basically the right place on the issue of striking a balance between security and privacy. That is enough to be called an Administration lackey, or, as one highly-recommended OP here the other night maintained, someone who prefers to live in an authoritarian state.

Well bullshit to that. But I also reject the charge of racism that is being made here. The left was in many ways just as hard on Clinton as it is on Obama. I know I was (yes, Virginia, it's possible to consider oneself a member of the left and support President Obama). Until we can point to specific race-based comments, we should avoid this charge and stick to substance.

[ProSense]

100. Great points, and

I have nothing against valid criticism. Some seem to want to stifle any support for the President. If you make a point in a criticial diary, you're attacked. If you start an OP pointing to a positive, you're attacked. I posted a NYT piece with no comment and it was alerted on: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023034825

As to this:

"Well bullshit to that. But I also reject the charge of racism that is being made here. The left was in many ways just as hard on Clinton as it is on Obama. I know I was (yes, Virginia, it's possible to consider oneself a member of the left and support President Obama). Until we can point to specific race-based comments, we should avoid this charge and stick to substance."

...the point was broad, and it included racisism, but it was specifically about hate. Not all people who hate are racists. In fact, some of the more irrational critics may simply hate Democrats.

[BeyondGeography]

125. Or anyone in power, for that matter

Race is always a factor in America. When people on the left call Obama a sellout, it is hard not to hear something more sometimes. But I take dubious solace in the fact that Clinton was called the same thing, as would any Democratic adult who has to settle into the job and get things done.

[cali]

149. I have never seen you do anything that remotely supports your claim that

you have nothing against valid criticism of the President's policies.

[ProSense]

165. I always

"I have never seen you do anything that remotely supports your claim that you have nothing against valid criticism of the President's policies. "

...post my opinion and/or information supporting whatever point I'm making. No one has to agree. Are you suggesting that posting opinions that countering valid criticism is wrong?

Valid criticisim is also an opinion. For example, there are people opposed to aspects of Obamacare, is posting a counterpoint to such criticism wrong?

[patrice]

462. You speak for me, in all but . . .

But I think we need to accept that people with whom we disagree are acting in good conscience far more often than not. Even if it's hard to digest sometimes.

Some are and some are not - ON BOTH SIDES. Some of what we are seeing is well-intended, some of it is designed to divide and conquer by obscuring the truth in several ways and it wouldn't take much in numbers of posters to make that happen. The problem is that there are too many people acting as though that isn't true.

[Apophis]

101. You need to change your name to NonSense.

Some of us value our Fourth Amendment rights and are pissed that they're going away.

Your love and blind admiration to a politician is clouding your judgement.

[ProSense]

122. I'm not going to, but thanks for the silly suggestion. n/t

[tblue]

155. Oh my gosh!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! I'm sorry. Nothing personal against him/her, but that made me lol.

[One of the 99]

102. Thanks you ProSense!

As usual, an intelligent and well written and researched post.

[Enrique]

104. this must be a crisis situation for Obama

this garbage had been mostly put aside, thankfully, but now it's coming back. They must feel it's necessary.

[ProSense]

108. I don't think

"this must be a crisis situation for Obama"

...that a diary at Daily Kos or this OP is in anyway a "crisis situation for Obama."

Discussions are happening all over the Internets.

Pew poll: Obama Job Approval Holds Steady, Economic Views Improve
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049114

[Scurrilous]

106. Excellent!

Thanks ProSense.

[demwing]

110. "at least allow others to offer a counterpoint without attacking them..." - Unbelievable!

You have some freaking nerve calling people Haters. Just try applying your own damned principle, I've heard enough bullshit from you to last a life time.

[ProSense]

113. Wait

"'at least allow others to offer a counterpoint without attacking them...' - Unbelievable!"

...you think people who offer a counterpoint should be attacked?

If you agree with the premise of the diary cited in the OP, just say so. I offered my opinion and provided it as an example.

[demwing]

217. You are being purposefully obtuse

and I'm not surprised.

[heaven05]

116. I

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:13 PM - Edit history (3)

don't hate the guy and down the road, historically speaking, he will have a rich legacy. I am hugely disappointed in some of his corporate appeasing policies that are set out in many of the responses in this OP/thread, so I won't list in my response. He or his staff/administration are not perfect. A POTUS is a POTUS beholden to many FINANCIAL and political interests. We have a political system corrupted by the dollar bill. This fact will NEVER change. Color of this POTUS is not the problem just my disappointment in him not following through on some pretty important promises, just one, GITMO should be closed now!. His political appointments have left a lot to be desired, mostly corporation 1%ers. He is judged harshly because twice as much is expected of him because of his color, by many in this group as well as the public at large. You know, two mountains versus the one mountain analogy that Amerikkka has made the norm for any successful person of color. No color is not the problem. BIG MONEY is. Most major amerikkkan political figures are ruled by BIG MONEY interests. Period.

[mikekohr]

123. President Obama's consistant poll approval ratings prove the majority of Americans see beyond race.

However:
President Obama's ceiling is very defined and static, because while he has been consistantly successful inspite of unprecedented Republican obstructionalism, he has also been consistantly black.

And like it or not a substantial minority in this country can not, nor will they ever, get past that regretable and pathetic trait.

God bless America.

[TransitJohn]

124. that's pretty weak sauce, even for you. eom

n/t

[Major Hogwash]

129. Well, if that's what you think, don't piss in the pot.

Because this is what we are having for lunch today.

[Puzzledtraveller]

135. But it's fun!!!

[truebluegreen]

131. No, it isn't. Period.

[OnyxCollie]

132. It's desperate spin from an obnoxious partisan flack. Period.

There, fixed that for you.

[Major Hogwash]

138. Couldn't find the "trash thread" "trash these words" or the "ignore" button near the user's nickname

Major fail.

[Bradical79]

197. Maybe you should take your own advice

Telling people who say things you don't like to ignore the OP is more than a little hypocritical. Major fail indeed. Major fail from Major Hogwash... seems fitting, lol.

[Major Hogwash]

205. Well, I have to admit that when I tell someone to go take a flying leap . . .

. . . I ain't going over the cliff with them.

Boo-yah!

[Beacool]

140. Gee, not again.............

[Puzzledtraveller]

151. or in the words of my Nanni, "Otra vez?!"

She was Spanish.

[Beacool]

166. She could have added:

Otra vez con esta pendejada.

[BrainDrain]

142. Speaking of shills....

This sure sounds like one for BHO.

Lets get something straight.

First, what has happened under this president was NOT what ANYONE in their right mind would have expected. Full scale spying on the people of the United States. Go ahead and play the what if game all you like, but IF this was still George W. Bush, the screaming would be all but deafening.

Second, acceptable standards of behavior are just that. We don't waive them just because someone is a color or not, a Democrat or not or anything else or not. Period. End of discussion.

DO NOT tell me it is hate to be angry that someone you voted for and someone you have expected better from has betrayed that.

BULLSHIT.

Go shill your BS else where. Honesty is what is needed here. Not band-aids and excuses. You want to cover stuff up and say it ain't that bad. Become a republican.

[Beacool]

160. What you said.

I wonder if the blindly faithful fans crying racism over legitimate criticism don't realize that they are doing Obama a disservice. I doubt that he would appreciate anyone labeling opposition to some of his policies as based on race.

Any president who supported full scale spying of its citizens would be criticized by the Left. Should Obama be given a pass because he's biracial? I find THAT to be racist.

[BrainDrain]

169. What you said...part 2

I agree. But not just a disservice to BHO, but to all of us.

[Beacool]

176. Exactly.

[bobduca]

146. "In a word: bullshit."

"In a word: bullshit."

Summarizing your worthless flack in your own words.... Priceless.

[DesMoinesDem]

154. LOL. You're desperate.

Snowden has completely broken you. It has been fun to watch.

[closeupready]

156. I like you, ProSense, but we've disagreed before, and now.

Peace.

[L0oniX]

162. YAwn

[allin99]

171. 3 quick questions for anyone who is +1 on this...

Are the 3 former nsa whistleblowers speaking out about the program because they're racist
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

Is this former nsa’er also racist
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889

Is the aclu racist for suing over the program
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

[Kolesar]

195. William Binney: he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.

thanks for the insightful link, allin99!!

Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they're doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.

But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.

So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.

(your first url)

[allin99]

198. Alright, 1 down, "traitor", no word on the other 3 persons and aclu?

[Kolesar]

234. Ha ha ... eom

[Pholus]

259. Any word about when Binney said the prosecution should occur?

From the same link.

Big hint -- you LOVE what Binney said at 04:55. You seem to completely ignore what he said at 08:47.

[allin99]

289. and no word about the other 4 mentioned. not 1 word. infact...

i've asked several times about people's opinions on the other 3 whistleblowers and the aclu and not 1 single person has answered. not. 1.

[Pholus]

291. Inconvenient facts need to be ignored, hence your crickets.

The silence is how you know you're right.

[Kolesar]

347. I went to work, Mr. Industrious

Shouldn't you be out "creating jobs" or something?

[Pholus]

394. Don't worry yourself about my employment, thanks.

You still haven't responded to my question. What do you think about Mr. Binney's second statement?

You liked the first one, after all, since it was all about being a traitor and all that.

[EC]

172. Thank you.

It was getting harder and harder to come here everyday and for the first time...I've decided the ads are okay and I don't need a star. Why? Because of all the tearing down of the President. I'm sick of it and worried that we'll end up with a repub senate because of all of this.

[freshwest]

474. +1. And you're right, that's exactly what it's intended to do.

[mike_c]

177. this is just absurd....

eom

[Democracyinkind]

179. Bulverisms do and not can not explain anything.

Philosophy 101.

[Marr]

180. Possibly your most pitiful sales pitch yet.

Congratulations.

[NRaleighLiberal]

181. + zillions

[Kolesar]

192. Your one-line non-sentence is pitiful in its hollowness, Marr

I have an image of circling hyenas. The cue was the thread with a hundred answers on the latest page.

[Marr]

199. This asinine post doesn't deserve a full sentence in reply.

It's a sentiment I'd expect from a child or a dullard. 'If you don't agree with me, you're a big meanie'.

As for the images of hyenas running through your head... well, this is called a discussion forum. It's a place where people make posts and then other people-- hold onto your seat here because I'm about to blow your mind-- respond to that post. If there seems to be an abundance of negative, dismissive replies, that says something about the OP and their argument.

[Zoeisright]

279. Right back atcha.

Your sentiment is something I'd expect from a child or a dullard.

[LondonReign2]

248. Indeed, she's set the bar low before

but yet somehow managed to crawl under it this time

[Skittles]

493. I no longer believe her to be a professional

nope

[Pholus]

183. Franken's words adequately summarize the problem you're having.

"They (Conservatives) don't get it. We (Liberals) love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups.j To a four-year-old everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow."

In your case, bad has to be expressed as really bad so I guess you think it must be hate.

[ProSense]

187. Everyone

Franken's words adequately summarize the problem you're having.

"They (Conservatives) don't get it. We (Liberals) love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups.j To a four-year-old everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow."

In your case, bad has to be expressed as really bad so I guess you think it must be hate.

...has an opinion. I happen to agree with that one.

Senator Al Franken on NSA surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986995

[Pholus]

191. Da. Multiple quotes do exist from many people.

It does not change the fact that your core argument is now that your opponents simply hate mommy.

Quite a step down.

[AgingAmerican]

185. It's thin skin

Obama has no problem with criticism from Democrats. His supporters.....not so much.

"Your job is to hold my feet to the fire"

"So, you need to be out there everyday raising these issues, telling us when we’re doing the right or wrong thing. My role is to be President of the United States, and your role is to be a strong voice for people who aren’t always heard." - President Barack Obama

[JDPriestly]

189. Obama has not had the strength to stand up to the national security

bureaucracy. Neither did Bill Clinton. Neither did any other president including FDR.

The generals and their civilian clones work their way up. They aren't elected by the people. They promote each other, and it's a pyramid. The people at the top grappled and flattered and sniveled to get there, and the ambitious at the bottom are grappling, flattering and sniveling to do the same.

To them, democracy is not the point. Status and success within the hierarchy in which they make their living is. Since they don't have to answer to democracy but rather answer to their superiors, they could, most of them and most of the time, care less about "the people." Since their subordinates grapple and flatter and snivel up to them to get ahead, they think we should do the same, or if we can't grapple and flatter and snivel up, should at least obey submissively.

Obama is not one of them. He did not grapple, flatter and snivel his way to the top. He got where he is by respecting and helping and working cooperatively with others.

And that is what is getting him into trouble now that he is the president, now that he is working with authoritarian pyramids like the military, the corporations that do defense contracts and the Republican Party which is also organized in a far more authoritarian, hierarchical fashion than are Democrats.

DUers should not lose sight of the goal which is to form an ever more inclusive, democratic society that is not based on hierarchy and authority but on equality and cooperation.

It is actually to Obama's credit that the conflict between the hierarchical segments of our society and the weaknesses in governing with a pyramid in which those who grapple, flatter and snivel the next one up get to lead are becoming apparent. Because it is the fact that Obama as one who listens and cooperates and respects others and really exemplifies leadership in a democracy that so many of us are so critical of the institutions in our government and society in which those at the top grappled, flattered and sniveled their ways up. We are rejecting the idea that everyone beneath the grapplers and flatterers and snivelers should do as they have done and are demanding real, lasting change in our national security institutions and that the Tea Parties, misguided as they are, are demanding change within their Republican Party.

The surveillance issue is the best example of our struggle at the moment. Obama did not institute the surveillance state. The administrations before him did, and I do not think it started just with George W. Bush. I think it started long ago, maybe during or shortly after WWII if not before that. So Obama is not the target of the criticism of those who are rejecting the surveillance of the national security state.

Don't misunderstand what is going on. Obama has not achieved the change that many of us hoped. But he is showing the way.

Change is painful for most people. And it is going to be very painful for our national security bureaucracy. What is more, the worst is yet to come for that crew because they are fighting the change tooth and nail. But that change is inevitable.

And, once that change has occurred, when people look back and think about the wars and surveillance and disruption that did not happen and the peace and problem solving that we did and recognize that we are realizing as true our dream of becoming a democracy, Obama will be remembered as the first to start us on that way.

And, by the way, I just realized as I wrote this that we have to change the way corporations are organized if we want to have a democratic society and that we have to begin that change by firing the government contractors who are doing jobs that, in the interest of sovereignty and democracy, civil servants should be doing. The corporate hierarchies are even worse than the national security and military ones.

[Pholus]

196. A very good argument.

Perhaps criticizing the "government" over this I haven't made it plain that there is a difference between the leadership and the apparatus.

I am infuriated that this program has been allowed to continue. The apparatus built it, but that was their job.

I consider this Congress' fault, so hearing that they have "oversight" isn't exactly a balm.

The President isn't the creator of this nightmare, but he hasn't exactly gotten on board with stopping it either nor has he done anything other than defend it. In that way I don't agree with your assertion that "Obama will be remembered as the first to start us on that way."

The major cheerleaders here aren't on board with your premise either -- after all, most of the arguments boil down to "it's here, it will happen so deal with it."

But your optimism is refreshing.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

384. I guess the republicans would have feasted on him more if he hadn'tsupported the surveillance

the public stills like the surveillance because they believe it catches terrorists.

[ProSense]

215. Excellent,

Don't misunderstand what is going on. Obama has not achieved the change that many of us hoped. But he is showing the way.

Change is painful for most people. And it is going to be very painful for our national security bureaucracy. What is more, the worst is yet to come for that crew because they are fighting the change tooth and nail. But that change is inevitable.

The OP isn't about disappointment, it's about being unable to credit the President with any achievement. In fact, it's about writing them off as if they never happened. He must not be credited with anything.

Criticism is expected, as is disappointment.

[Buzz Clik]

224. +1

Hats off, ProSense, for tending this thread with rational debate. Nicely played all the way.

[JDPriestly]

288. It is all a part of growth and change.

The paranoid security crowd has managed to way-lay one president after the other -- and now they are trying it on Obama.

They will not succeed. He is full of grace. Great in spite of himself.

He makes mistakes, but as with this program, his mistakes seem to wander off and then return to make a point.

I am wondering what will befall the trans-continental pipeline and the new trade agreement before they get our country into a lot of trouble.

Obama is just being very quiet about all of it. He lets the truth take care of itself.

As with these hideous NSA programs, the truth will out.

It's up to us to get rid of this surveillance. I think we will. We have to abolish the secret courts.

[Bobbie Jo]

286. Just wanted you to know....

Excellent post, nicely done.

[Skraxx]

324. Excellent Comment, Insightful Analysis, Well Done!

[allin99]

213. Woah. I'm no opologist but...

would anyone be able to satisfy you? He may not be the toughest president in the world, obviously not, but he got stuff done. and he is and has been during his terms way less of a hawk than hillary.

Guantanamo, his inaction, DISGUSTING, absolutely deplorable, and on that i think he's just at a loss and also weak but i think it's just too much for him. but he's always been a bit 1984 so that kinda falls on you.

He is only a complete failure to those who had expectations that he would be this sweeping liberal with the strength of a mac truck.

He never promised single-payer, never, but he knows full well that although his plan was fairly republican it WILL lead to single payer in the future, it'll prolly take about 40 years, but it'll get there.

[HooptieWagon]

317. Actually, Obama shows a spine when advocating Bush* policies and officials.

He only turns into a jellyfish when advocating Democratic policies and officials.

[YoungDemCA]

200. Not even worth replying to

Consider this a courtesy reply.

[secondwind]

201. Wish I could K&R more than once.. you've said what I could not express.. thank you!!!!!!!!

[MNBrewer]

203. Bull

shit

[RZM]

204. Lame as hell

Is that really all you have left?

Chalking it up to race is not all that great of an argument even when you're talking about Republicans. To use it against liberals is positively absurd.

[Rex]

208. When adults tell me they won't vote for him because of his skin color

ya...it is hate. I did not know that I knew so many racists, until Obama was elected to office the first time. Very depressing. However, it is wrong to misconstrue that everyone with negative feedback of the POTUS is a hater. People don't like how easy going he is with Wall Street and the fact that he compared himself to Reagan - will always be his mistake. Then there is the obvious disdain his cabinet has for liberals.

But YA...a lot of it is racism.

[whatchamacallit]

212. Meh, I'm mostly indifferent to the president

All presidents really. As a kid I was taught to regard them with reverence as 'divine leaders of our great nation - special men destined to play a unique role in the evolution of America'... Live long enough to take notice of the wildly varying caliber of candidates and presidents, and the less than divine way they ascend to office, and you start to understand we're talking about a job. I think it's lame when people use affectionate possessive adjectives like my and our when referring to the president. IMO the only difference between the president and any other American is a good night at the polls.

[dawg]

214. He's so perfect. No one could actually *disagree* with him.

So it has to be hate and/or racism.

Nevermind the fact that most of us so-called haters voted for him. Twice.

[Puzzledtraveller]

219. it's amazing how that fact escapes some people.

"Nevermind the fact that most of us so-called haters voted for him. Twice."

[Logical]

220. And donated money and knocked on doors! n-t

[Floyd_Gondolli]

218. It's about coveting the struggle

I feel bad for Elizabeth Warren in many ways. She is the new darling of the party. Many want her to run for president. I suspect that she may some day, and I also suspect she has an excellent chance to win. She has all of the qualities that I would want in a leader.

But it wouldn't be long before the same people who are tearing Obama down would be tearing her down. A lot of people just covet the struggle and any leader who isn't 100 percent in lockstep with their ideology 100 percent of the time is just a corporate third way DLC shill.

I'd give her less than a year before many here started turning on her. All it would take is getting crossways with their ideology just once.

[HappyMe]

226. Well said.

The same people that complain about somebody defending the President ("lockstep", "worshippers&quot have their own lockstep they expect people to march to.

[freshwest]

475. And some wonder why quality people are not running for office. No support from their own.

[Logical]

221. Your attitude is "You are with Obama or against Obama"

I get it!

[sheshe2]

223. K&R!

[Throd]

227. Well THAT makes it easier for me to explain. From now on, I'll just tell people I'm a racist.

Think of the time I'll save not having to go into the details of certain disappointments I have with his performance in office.

[dennis4868]

229. Great post

Thank you for it! The haters here will always hate no matter what Obama does.

[Zorra]

231. You conveniently forget that many of these same nice DU non-black folks you are calling racist

bigot haters supported and helped elect Obama, and were joyful, hopeful, and enthusiastic when he took office.

The proof is right here at DU, written in stone, in the post Obama nomination posts of many of these same good progressive white folks you are trashing.
.
Your assertions of racism in this case are possibly the most disgusting, cheap trick propaganda device I have ever seen on DU.

The bottom line (pun intended) of why these nice white folks, and even mixed race people like me, and even many liberal black folks, are not happy with Obama is that after he was elected, and to this day, it is business as usual in Washington.

We wanted Obama to make the main focus of his Presidency to be extreme institutional progressive democratic reform, in government, society, and economy.

We wanted a President who would who would work tirelessly to end the control of our government by wealthy private interests.

But all we got was (the) business, as usual, with a small portion of social and environmental reform.

The vitriol you are seeing is not hate, racism, and bigotry, prosense. We understand that the President has an enormous job to do, and that getting things done is difficult in this irreparably broken political system. What we don't understand is why the President has not made a significant sustained focused effort to root out the wealthy private interests controlling our government, and has not even acknowledged that wealthy private interests are controlling our government.

Why not???

You see, our criticism is Democrats simply being Democrats, believing in the traditional ideology of the Democratic Party, and wanting the purported Democrat we elected President to govern like a Democrat.

But we got business as usual.

We want democracy, so don't expect our criticism of Obama to end until he makes a sincere effort to wipe all vestiges of fascism from our country. Yes, he has done some good things, and good on him for that, but he has not made any apparent focused, sustained effort at rooting out control of our government by wealthy private interests

We want democracy, not the kinder, gentler fascism being forced upon us by the Third Way New Democrat Blue Dog conservatives who have infected the heart of Democratic Party philosophy with the insidious, malignant pathogen of fascist corporatism.

Don't you get it? We don't want these fucking wealthy private interests controlling our government anymore. We want our President to fight them tooth and nail, so we can remove these rats and termites from undermining the foundation and structure of our democratic Democratic house, so that we can begin the progressive work of making our government, economy, and society constructive instruments used to do the utmost to insure the life, liberty, happiness, and health of every citizen of our nation, and to foster and preserve a healthy environment for ourselves and all future generations.

Instead, for far too many of our leaders, all of the republicans, and their Democratic allies, the utmost priority of our government is just.

BUSINESS AS USUAL.

Do you get it now? All these nice, kind, compassionate liberal Democrat white folks you are insulting are not bigoted racists, they are anti-fascist democrats. They don't give a flying fuck if the President is black, red, white, yellow, green, pink, purple or is red white and blue striped. They don't care if the President is female, male, or other. They don't care if the President is lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, or straight.

It's very simple.

They want the President, no matter what s/he looks like, etc, to work to govern like a democratic Democrat, and protect our people, country, and democracy from fascist corporatist plutonomy.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
- Mussolini

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States..."

So please. Everyone here know how much you like and admire the President. Just please, stop with these cheap bullshit allegations of racism toward all of us who deign to criticize the President for what may be criticism leveled for the most appropriate reason on the planet.

[ProSense]

235. No,

"You conveniently forget that many of these same nice DU non-black folks you are calling racist"

...I didn't "conveniently forget" anything because you, not me, made that claim. I did not accuse any DUer of being "racist."

In fact, the "non-black" reference is curious. The point I made was all encompassing, including bigotry and envy, and was not specific to "non-black folks."

Your point is a straw man.

[Zorra]

240. Please, don't be deliberately obtuse. We've already seen that movie several times. nt

[ProSense]

243. Please don't post straw men arguments and expect affirmation. n/t

[Zorra]

247. Don't worry, I never expect you to sincerely acknowledge the real motivations

behind what you post.

[ProSense]

253. Yeah, because unless

"Don't worry, I never expect you to sincerely acknowledge the real motivations behind what you post."

...I accept your straw man claims about my motivation, I'm being disingenuous.

You appear to be grasping at haystacks.

[Marr]

255. "...unless I accept your straw man claims about my motivation, I'm being disingenuous."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3052983

DaVinci had his paints, Mozart had his music, Baryshnikov had dance... you have projection. You are a master of your craft. I salute you.

[ProSense]

256. Was that a

"blue linky" to my "motivation"?

[Pholus]

261. Da, it appears to be trying to communicate as you do!

[ProSense]

262. Is that you? n/t

[Pholus]

263. Hmmmm, deep philosophical question!

Yes, I am me.

On the other hand, if you are asking about sock puppets sorry that is not me.

Why is everything like your name -- two meanings, one clever, one darker.

[ProSense]

265. Yeah,

Hmmmm, deep philosophical question!

Yes, I am me.

On the other hand, if you are asking about sock puppets sorry that is not me.

Why is everything like your name -- two meanings, one clever, one darker.

...deep. Pass the joint.

[Pholus]

266. Considering you're implying that the joint is in "past" tense,

I must conclude you smoked it -- before you typed that utter travesty of an OP.

[ProSense]

267. Fixed, laughing and typing does that. n/t

[Pholus]

270. Somehow I figured you did most of your communication with a mouse... nt

[bobduca]

433. and a clipboard

[Zorra]

276. *yawn* Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Just another propaganda technique among the many you use

on a daily basis to convince us that anyone who challenges the status quo is evil. I could dissect your entire OP and point out every propaganda device you use, but I don't have the time, so I'll just start with the beginning of your post

OP subject line: It's hate. Period.

Second paragraph: "It's racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy, but a lot of it is based on race, even. the envy."

Propaganda technique used: Name calling/stereotyping: Giving a person, a group, or an idea a bad label by association with easy to remember negative words.

The purpose of your OP in this case is to put the idea into people's minds that all critics of President Obama are racists, in a duplicitous attempt to discourage people from criticizing President Obama and status quo corporatism. You discreetly avoid naming any specific group so that you can use weaselspeak to deny that you are trying to broadbrush all critics of Obama as racists.

Long time Duers didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. We suffered through 8 long horrible years of constant daily propaganda during the Bush regime, and are now able, due to this long experience, to spot GOP/DLC/Third Way/corporatist propaganda on the head of a pin from a mile away. Many of us familiarized ourselves with recognizing propaganda by actually studying various essays on how to recognize propaganda.

I knew exactly what you were doing the second I spotted your OP subject line.

Obviously, judging by the responses to your OP, and subsequent OP's posted as a reactions to your OP, the vast majority of us are not buying your propaganda, and recognize it for what it is:

Bullshit propaganda used to maintain support for the corporatist status quo.

Tom Tomorrow frequently identifies and exposes this type of propaganda through his very excellent art work.

[ProSense]

281. No,

"The purpose of your OP in this case is to put the idea into people's minds that all critics of President Obama are racists, in a duplicitous attempt to discourage people from criticizing President Obama and status quo corporatism. You discreetly avoid naming any specific group so that you can use weaselspeak to deny that you are trying to broadbrush all critics of Obama as racists."

...that's your sillly interpretation because you prefer to ignore my actually point. You're ignoring it so you can justify making bogus claims about "propaganda."

[Matariki]

449. "weaselspeak" LOL

Great post Zorra. Thanks for posting the Tom Tomorrow piece - I hadn't seen it. Thanks also for calling out the propaganda.

[AgingAmerican]

308. Your whole OP is a strawman

You should heed your own advise.

[malokvale77]

367. You said what I couldn't put into words

"The proof is right here at DU, written in stone, in the post Obama nomination posts of many of these same good progressive white folks you are trashing. "

[Babel_17]

233. Matt Damon, where does he land on the spectrum?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Damon#Political_views

How did he go from one of us to this?

http://www.bet.com/news/celebrities/2012/12/28/matt-damon-criticizes-obama-and-politics.html

Sounds like just plain old disillusionment to me. Nothing nefarious there.

I'll cut to the chase, here's what's going on. Our expectations were unrealistically raised. The whole spectrum of those who were tired of Bush/Cheney were led to believe that the next President would be basically in synch with their political beliefs.

That expectation gap was never properly dealt with. In truth, there was never going to be an easy way to do that. But compounding that chore, and to an enormous degree, was that the Republicans were ok with letting the economy suffer if they could score points.

I'll give the administration credit, it knew it couldn't live up to to the expectations it created but it honestly thought that it could generally improve the lot of everyone.

Instead, it turned out that that the other side in the administration's negotiations was more shameful and coordinated than any reasonable worst case scenario.

So, and here's the sticking point, extremely painful and unforeseen choices had to be made.

These painful choices when combined with the untenable expectations that were raised back in 2008 are playing a large part in the blow-back from the left.

We can discuss that from dusk till dawn but it boils down to politics. It's about judgement and choices.

The administration is looking at a bigger picture than most of us and imo will be judged positively by history on a lot of issues. Less so on others.

But the administration is not above hearing the discontent of the people. And, in case anyone has forgotten, there is a truly historical level of discontent in the country.

So, let's recognize that. There's ample grounds for even Democrats to express their discontent. Trying to stifle that is not helpful.

Composing lists of how the administration has fought back the Republicans and the unethical interest groups would be more helpful.

Because that's what we Democrats want. We want more victories, we want more battles with the regressive political forces that got us into our mess.

Victory will unite us.

[redqueen]

236. Thanks for this. Between the childish vitriol and the free pass for anti-feminist garbage,

...

[bahrbearian]

239. Damn. all those self loathing Racist that voted for Obama.

[great white snark]

241. K&R. Truth to power ProSense.

I see what you see my friend.

[cali]

244. bwahahaha. truth to power? seriously? oh my word. what power?

[Puzzledtraveller]

249. The power of self deception

[Scootaloo]

252. What power? The power of voodoo!

...Sorry, it's one of those days

[LondonReign2]

242. UTTER BULLSHIT

Unless you meant hate of the policies

[ProSense]

245. No, I mean

"Unless you meant hate of the policies"

...hate of the man.

They're coming out of the woodwork at Kos today: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/20/1216665/-Obama-is-a-F-G-FRAUD

Again, I seriously doubt some of these people are Democratic voters.

[LondonReign2]

251. Your OP is utter tripe

Any disagreement with Obama's policies means we're haters at best, and most likely racists, eh? That's what you're going with?

[ProSense]

254. Well,

"Any disagreement with Obama's policies means we're haters at best, and most likely racists, eh? That's what you're going with?"

...your interpretation of it fits that description: "utter tripe"

[LondonReign2]

258. Yeah. 'Cause an OP titled "It's Hate. Period." totally means something else

[ProSense]

260. I can't

"Yeah. 'Cause an OP titled "It's Hate. Period." totally means something else"

...force you to understand it, and I certainly can't help with your comprehension.

[cali]

421. bwahahahahaha! too good! too funny! perfect.

You titled your op for maximum effect. you're getting called on it. deservedly. don't play coy.

[ProSense]

431. You forgot

"You titled your op for maximum effect. you're getting called on it. deservedly. don't play coy. "

...the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=152034&sub=trans

[Skittles]

492. you're SO wrong and it is EXTREMELY insulting

[BumRushDaShow]

246. A-fucking men

Haters gonna hate.

[Scootaloo]

250. Twice the work for half the credit

Apparently it's the same whether you're fixing cars or fixing nations

[Aerows]

257. This takes the cake.

SMH.

[Yavin4]

264. Leftists and Liberals can be racists as well.

There are leftists and liberals who only like African Americans when they are poor. Rise to the same level as Whites, let alone above it, and that brings out the hatred and vitrol that we see on the right.

It's exactly like the White Liberals in the 1960s who marched with Civil Rights protestors in the South, but went back home and enacted laws restricting Africans Americans from moving into their neighborhoods.

[Number23]

319. Amazing post. Thanks for that.

[JustAnotherGen]

353. Please go post this

In the African American group.

You very much nailed it - and what some of us are beginning to see as a hard truth.

[patrice]

404. I agree with this, except you should throw Libertarians into that mix, because there is synergy

between those groups as they build their respective bases, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF WINNING ON ANY OF THEIR ISSUES since this really is all about demonstrating the political power to do damage to a sitting president - though there's a lot of issue theater going on, issues, the things that affect people's lives, do not matter and all issue losses will be blamed on the President and Democrats as those doing so simultaneously rob them of the base that they need in order to win on the issues.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

429. We oughta send all the Whites back to Europe.

[freshwest]

472. I worked with them in a union job. They didn't like the EEOC shaking things up with Carter.

I was listening to them for a long time, and argued when Reagan ran. They voted him in and the rest is history. They gave other reasons but as I knew them, I knew what it was when I saw it.

Carter's EEOC as forcing consent degrees in hiring. When they needed a lot of work done and the union forced them to hire more people as they were working the guys to death on overtime, the social pecking order became very clear.

They put off hiring women and minorities until they filled almost all of the positions up with white males. About 90%. Then they hired hispanics. Then black males. Next, and they hired white women, then seemingly skipped hispanic women, and the last were black women. IOW, they met the terms, but not the spirit of the CD.

Black women being last, I might add, had to have more education than any of the other groups to get the same job. That had been the case for years. Outrageous. And yet I had to listen to white males carrying on about affirmative action, quotas and the like because they believed those 'others' were qualified. It didn't fly with me.

These are what I call the invisible people. Some act like they don't exist. The way things are in politics is from the white man's view of what's important. Don't get me wrong, although I'm sure someone will pick a bone, I love white men and I'm white. There is no way I'm going to say their situation in many cases isn't as bad but it's not institutional.

I might add that management was very effective in setting white males against each other to their detriment. But once a person has been willing to sacrifice someone else on the altar of getting ahead, the die is cast. Eventually, management parceled out things until their no solidarity, and from there, they were easy to pick off and even gave up on their union. Management eventually outsourced their jobs. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is what it was.

In every case, blacks were last hired, first fired. Oh, and not to mention, the company manipulated the quota by hiring black women, as they counted them both black and female. Their jobs meant one less black man would be hired, or one less non-black woman. Black women have been the worst treated in this country, with black men coming in really close.

In fact the discrimination of this kind puts an insane burden on blacks as a whole. It is mindnumbingly insane. Honestly, if I was a black woman, I would be in a rage, seeing what has been done to the children, their brothers, etc. It's been crazy for too long.

[Cha]

268. And yet outside the hate bubble..

The remarkable consistency of President Obama’s job approval numbers

New numbers from Pew Research Center tell that story. Forty nine percent of respondents approved of the job President Obama while 43 percent disapproved. Those numbers are remarkably unchanged from where Obama stood in a January Pew poll despite the fact that the past five and a half months have seen the failure of the White House’s attempt to change gun laws, the IRS scandal, evidence of an improving economy, the NSA revelations and plenty of other “major” news events.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/19/the-remarkable-consistency-of-president-obamas-job-approval-numbers/

Haters are always around.. fomenting. but, there are so many people who don't get on the internet to expound their everlasting gobsmacking rage and who are Never appreciative of anything that's been accomplished (which is the tell).

Nothing wrong with being critical of policies you don't like.. in fact, President Obama encourages it.

From the Charlie Rose interview..

...On the other hand, what I also believe is its useful to have a bunch of critics out there who are checking government power and who are making sure we are doing things right so that if we've triple-checked how we're operating any one of these programs, lets go quadruple-check it. I'm comfortable with that and I'm glad to see that we are starting to do that.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/06/president-obama-responds-to-bush-light.html

h/t sheshe http://www.democraticunderground.com/110211068

[Not Sure]

269. You can't criticize the president because his father is from Africa?

If you do, you clearly hate people from Africa?

If Obama's father weren't from Africa and instead was a white man from South Carolina or Canada or Poland, could he then be criticized?

Come on, this is silly.

[ProSense]

274. If Africa is a continent, is Rand Paul's hair still weird looking?

"You can't criticize the president because his father is from Africa?"

Speaking of "silly."

[bvar22]

293. Its NOT "silly". It IS Desperation.

It IS scraping the bottom of the slime barrel.
After the Butt Hurt they suffered last week by siding with Lindsey Graham and the Republicans who support a Massive Surveillance/Security State ("to protect our freedoms&quot , they are lashing out irrationally at Democrats (again).

There are plenty of rational reasons to disagree with Centrist President Obama on a multitude of issues, not the least of which is a lifelong commitment to the traditional Democratic Party Values of FDR and LBJ.

They are desperately trying to equate strong disagreement on POLICY
with Racism and Hate, an absurd premise I completely REJECT.

If I rejected Republican Policy in the 60s,
I am consistent in rejecting it today,
and that is NOT a diagnostic criteria for HATE or RACISM.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[ProSense]

297. Well,

"After the Butt Hurt they suffered last week by siding with Lindsey Graham and the Republicans who support a Massive Surveillance/Security State ("to protect our freedoms&quot , they are lashing out irrationally at Democrats (again)."

...that seems like "desperation" to me.

[Junkdrawer]

271. What will ProSense do next?

And I thought "you're Republican Trolls" was low as it goes.

[Aerows]

272. I'm not certain how convoluted it could get after this

It's like wondering if the entire train is going to finally fall off of the bridge after about 18 cars have already fallen off.

[Junkdrawer]

273. I guess after a while the fallen cars tend to support rather than pull down the remaining cars...

but where there's a will....

[Aerows]

277. Somebody can spin it.

"Only 18 cars fell off the bridge, when there were 3 others that could have!"

[Skittles]

491. you have a way with analogies, Aerows!

it's a true gift!

[Aerows]

494. I take it

that I'm not scheduled for an ass-kicking over this post?

[Skittles]

495. I WILL KICK ANALOGYIZING AEROWS ASS

YES INDEED

[ProSense]

275. I certainly hope you're not attributing those words to me. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

280. You're right. s/b "concern trolls". Sorry. n/t

[ProSense]

282. So you were and are trying to attribute those words to me? n/t

[Junkdrawer]

285. Frankly, I've conflated you with some of the more extreme of Obama's defenders....

Although I can produce post(s) where you use the "concern troll" meme.

Look, in the past, when I would see ProSense posts, I could be sure of a closely reasoned, well researched post defending the President and his accomplishments. Sure, legitimate criticisms would be minimized, but at least the post would be defensible.

But recently.....

[ProSense]

287. Please,

"Although I can produce post(s) where you use the 'concern troll' meme. "

...produce them. Refresh my memory. Based on your previous claim ("you're Republican Trolls&quot : It should state: You're "concern trolls."

Thanks in advance.

[Junkdrawer]

290. Here's one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1461590

[ProSense]

292. Thanks, but

that states: "The concern trolls are out."

As indicated by some of the responses, that was likely a night of RW-troll invasion prior to the election.

I did not say to anyone "you're a concern troll."

[MisterP]

392. rewrite the Lord's Prayer?

http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/duvaliers/lordsprayer.htm

[ZombieHorde]

283. Unfortunately, "mind reading" is a common fallacy.

Even more unfortunate, the fallacy is extremely common between lovers and/or former lovers. If you feel compelled to use your make-believe telepathy on critics of President Obama, then so be it. Some will see through the fallacy, while some will won't, and you may win some those less attentive folks over to your side. All's fair in politics and pizza. Just try hard to avoid the fallacy when you're fighting with your lover(s).

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

284. What you have described in your OP, my friend, is called The Black Tax.

[lib87]

310. Indeed

[Warren DeMontague]

295. So when I say Obama should stop letting Holder arrest cancer patients for smoking pot, and that

as a larger position he should end the highly racist drug war, I'm being "racist"?

[bvar22]

323. YEP!

The BOrG has spoken.

They have anointed themselves as the sole authority in determining WHAT constitutes rational disagreement with the President,
and WHAT is an irrational spewing of HATE and RACISM.
There is NO Middle Ground,
and NO other options because in the Binary BOrG World,
[font size=4]"If its not Racism, then what is it?"[/font]

In their minds, there is not the possibility of existence for loyal, life-long Working Class Democrats who have NEVER supported Republican Policy no matter WHO is sitting in the Oval Office.

Like being called a "Traitor" by Cheney,
being attacked by the BOrG is a Liberal Democrat honor.
It is like being identified as mainstream FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat
who has never supported Conservative Republican Policy,
no matter WHO is sitting in the Oval Office.




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[ProSense]

312. ^ this ^ n/t

[limpyhobbler]

325. Not my fault that you have the thankless job of defending an undercover Republican. nt

[ProSense]

327. Yeah, I was the only Democrat who supported his re-election.

It's my fault. Mea culpa!

[limpyhobbler]

328. quit whining. Obama is a Republican. nominate somebody better next time. nt

[ProSense]

330. OK,

"quit whining. Obama is a Republican. nominate somebody better next time."

...I'll get right on that. Also, I'd like to suggest that if you voted for Obama, that you should "quit whining."

Come to think of it, you should apologize.

[limpyhobbler]

331. Care for some cheese with that exceptional whine ?

Should you apologize for this disgraceful OP claiming Democrats' criticisms of the backstabber-in-chief are motivated by "racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy" .....?

Not really. You just said your opinion. No apology required. .

[ProSense]

343. You're the one whining about Obama n/t

[Jakes Progress]

298. Total crock of an OP.

Who's at the PS Helm this month?

I don't hate Obama. I don't think he is very effective. I think he is unable to learn from his mistakes. I think he worships the ideas of the neocons. I think he runs liberal and administers corporate.

On the other hand. He's personable. He has the greatest wife in the country. I don't think he wanted to move the country five steps to the right, but did so because he lacked skills and a feel for people. He is far more corporate friendly than people friendly. He doesn't fake caring as well as Clinton did so it shows up more. And he is a hell of a lot better than the corpse and the goon who ran against him in the elections.

To say that I hate him because I don't think he is as good as he should be is just stupid. How do you feel when I say that you only support him because you have no political soul and are in thrall to his every movement, in love with his awesome good looks, and feel if you defend him, he will be nice to you. That would be demeaning to you. You are being demeaning to those whose political and moral center is now swayed by looks or fame or a good pr department.

If you don't think people should call you and idiot or shill for defending his rightwing policies, then you shouldn't (if you are being intellectually honest) call those who decry corporate and right-wing actions regardless of the awesomeness of the dude doing the acting.

[ProSense]

299. Well,

I don't hate Obama. I don't think he is very effective. I think he is unable to learn from his mistakes. I think he worships the ideas of the neocons. I think he runs liberal and administers corporate.

On the other hand. He's personable. He has the greatest wife in the country. I don't think he wanted to move the country five steps to the right, but did so because he lacked skills and a feel for people. He is far more corporate friendly than people friendly. He doesn't fake caring as well as Clinton did so it shows up more. And he is a hell of a lot better than the corpse and the goon who ran against him in the elections.

...given that the OP isn't about you (check again, you're not mentioned), all I can say is thanks for sharing.

[Jakes Progress]

387. More crock.

Nice dodge though.

Obama is the lamest Democratic president ever. More reagan than Clinton.

Now is it about me?

[ProSense]

396. No,

"Obama is the lamest Democratic president ever. More reagan than Clinton.

Now is it about me?"

...that's your opinion, and it still doesn't make the OP about you.

[Jakes Progress]

445. Pottery Barn.

[AgingAmerican]

313. The OP is a strawman

Period.

[OrwellwasRight]

447. +1000

[felix_numinous]

302. The cult of personality

is effective in getting Americans' eyes off the ball. Making Wikileaks about Assange, making the surveillance revelations about Snowdon, and making the horrors Manning exposed about punishing and making an example out of him.

This is the SAME CRAP. President Obama is not 'The Government'--he is the Commander and Chief and Executive, but seeing what happens to any whistleblower or leaker indicates what would happen to him if he took a harder stance against these international privately owned entities that exist SYSEMS WIDE in our government.

Am I disappointed in being reminded that politicians lie to be elected? Yes. Do I still respect him? Absolutely, he is a decent human being, and RESPECT him enough to think he can handle honest and passionate discussions about what many see as a threat to our country--while discerning what is or is not actual racism or unmerited hatred.

For corruption this vast to change, it has to happen everywhere at once--constant and dedicated public pressure, along with people within each part of the systems, banks, wall street, secret government agencies, military, corrupt church meddling, prison corruption--reform is going to take a nationwide effort--and I think international effort.

We CAN work toward election reform, and elect the best people we can--WHILE keeping our eyes on the BALL of preserving our Republic and working toward exposing and reforming this vast corruption---which will take dedication and focus THROUGH election cycles and beyond the cult of personality that is being used to distract us all!

[Junkdrawer]

304. This.

[senseandsensibility]

374. Hate !!!! Hate!!!!!! Hate!!!!!!!

You're a hater. And a racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope this isn't necessary, but it probably is: And seriously, I agree with every word you wrote.

[patrice]

399. Thank you. That states my functional foundation perfectly. Prioritizing political damage to Obama

will result in much more damage on the issues and set the Left further back than it is now. Maybe the damage will cause them to accrue a bigger hard-core, so they don't care if they succeed any time soon. It's sad, because it means that it's a 30-somethings movement and we old-tyme Lefties will be used up before the movement develops more fully or does much for our lives.

Personally, I don't think that's necessary. If the movement weren't so dominated by Libertarians, I'm guessing it could have some degree of success AS THE LEFT relatively soon. Libertarians introduce entropy on the issues, so the whole thing could very possibly go through some cycles of losses before the hard-core Left separates and gets big enough to actually accomplish something maybe in about 10-15 years, when it could be sooner if they weren't in bed with Libertarians.

[Jarla]

439. Yes, I agree with much of this

[HooptieWagon]

307. True. I hate when a govt official violates the 4th amendment.

I don't care what letter follows their name. Some Democrats have principles. Others follow Dick Cheney.

Hint: If Dick Cheney agrees with you, it might be time for an intervention.

[RetroLounge]

320. ...

RL

[flamingdem]

321. Hate in the form of subtle derision with a mask of disappointment

I see it in people who were never supporters but kept this kind of quiet to avoid the obvious questions. Every time they get a reason to diss they do while saying that they had "such high hopes". Just like Snowden. Wasn't that clever of him to tap into this trend.

[Logical]

322. We need the unrec back at the DU. n-t

[L0oniX]

336. [phone]

[Number23]

326. K&R What is almost humorous about all of this is the people who for some reason feel compelled to

"remind" us what happened during Bill Clinton's presidency as if we weren't there.

We were. We know about Vince Foster. And Monica. And Whitewater. And the disgusting attacks on Hillary from the right. And we were pissed then. We also know alot less about the attacks on Bill from the left and that's probably because they were not nearly as personal, as vile, as disgusting as the stuff we see now. From what I understand, Bill found his attackers on the left only moderately more palatable than his attackers on the right and he certainly had little love for his leftist critics.

But I am willing to bet everything I have in my pocket right now that Obama probably finds his critics on both sides equally exhausting. Considering how similar the attacks are in message and overheated foolishness often based on mistruths are from both sides, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if he saw very little daylight between his critics on the left and right. And THAT'S the real issue here for a lot of us.

[JustAnotherGen]

337. ProSense has taken a beating for this

And chiming in to say not only was I aware of the Clinton nonsense - he was the first President I voted for.not the first I campaigned for though - as my parents dragged us out for Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis as kids.

I even remember his Sister Souljah moment!

[Number23]

340. Yep. I know alot of black people were thoroughly disgusted with his Sister Souljah comments

I remember thinking that it was just BLATANT pandering to white racists -- left and right. But black people still gave and still do give Bill his props for his policies, including opening up the US economy to us in ways we had never experienced prior to his presidency.

I know alot of black people that wish things could be half as good economically now as they were under Clinton but sometimes I think that ship has passed, probably for good.

[JustAnotherGen]

345. Pandering yes

But a bit truthful. Kind of like Obama pointing out that Kanye is a jackass. He said it - not me! I'm just being a "good German" as they call it now and parroting The Leader.

Black women did the best economically under Clinton. And those of us who were privileged found even more doors opened during his admin.

But I agree - I don't have a lot of hope for black America's ability to prosper. Last in - first to go. And we still are dramatically unemployed in this recession.

[Kolesar]

352. The attackers "on the left" at DU are Republican trolls acting like leftists..eom

[Logical]

363. Really, some trolls who complain about Obama have been here 8 years? Wow, it was a long term plan?

[Kolesar]

366. zombies

Open multiple accounts. Post now and again, go back to the basement and years later make trouble.

I borrowed that from someone who posted it five minutes ago. I excerpted it for you.

I think we are talking about obsessives. Don't these people have hobbies or loved ones to occupy their time? Oh, never mind

[Logical]

371. It amazes me that some DU members are so enchanted with Obama that any complainer.....

is either a troll or a racist.

Some people worked on both elections but think Obama has been a disappointment and expected more. Including me.

You can be a liberal and still be extremely disappointed in Obama.

[Kolesar]

372. Your first statement is a presumptuous loaded statement

That's as far as I read.
You compose about nothing that is worth reading
Get a hobby or something

[Logical]

373. Wow, taking advice from you would not be a good idea. I have read many of your posts. n-t

[Kolesar]

375. pretend skeptic

[Logical]

377. Half your posts makes no sense. n-t

[Kolesar]

368. eyeswideshut got 'stoned today. That asshole probably has another account to use.

What a great way to spend a life

[Logical]

376. Well, many people waste their time here. If they enjoy it who cares? n-t

[patrice]

412. DINOs are nothing new. nt

[freshwest]

470. I sure hope so. Or libertarians acting like Democrats. They're not hiding it anymore which is good.

[Union Scribe]

471. Well duh, no one could disagree with you and not be a troll.

Kinda funny though, that you'd defend Republican policies then call people who oppose them Republicans. You might want to rethink that branding message.

[freshwest]

469. It is for me. 'Smells like team spirit!' Except the song is great. This team, not so much.

[mwrguy]

329. It absolutely is hate

And race has a lot to do with it.

[JackRiddler]

332. Yes! Attack the Syphillitic Traitors!

Commies! Haters! Racists!

[brentspeak]

333. They must be getting desperate over there at the New Democrat Network

Or maybe people there get paid by the number of views/responses their threads get.

[fascisthunter]

334. wow... sick

[East Coast Pirate]

341. Wow.

Not much sense in that OP.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

344. We are constantly being told to expect a lot during the campaign....

....and then we are told we expect too much after the election.

[patrice]

416. There was some crossover vote in '08. I started worrying about it from the first that

I saw stuff about it, "What happens when they cross back?"

Then something that calls itself "the Left" turned against this President rather quickly after inauguration, kicked off by Robert Gibbs's remark about "the PROFESSIONAL Left", people getting paid to think/write what they think/write. I have also seen that Gibbs's remark was directed at the Huffington Post, a putative "Leftie" home where you can see advertisements for $35,000.00 handbags. Huffington Post was also for sale somewhere about the time of Gibbs's remark and, not surprisingly, much of what goes on on the internet and in media in general IS ABOUT SELLING ADVERTISING. Disclaimer: I'm NOT much of an Arianna fan.

This may be a chicken-or-the-egg question as to who drove whom away. I don't know, but I have seen some pretty extreme anti- stuff going on here, set off by next to nothing early on. A more recent response to that has been some equally pro- things going on.

I'm sick of it, sick of the insults and sick of the mischaracterizations of opposing points of view.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

427. Too many on the Left projected their own feelings upon Obama...

But here's the thing. They weren't tossed aside like Clinton's DLC actively did. They were welcome and were given a seat at the table more than I've seen since the Reagan years. It's like the Democratic Party is having to relearn what the word "Liberal" means after years of running away from it and to it's surprise, it's not what Conservatives have claimed. Also. the Democrats are just now questioning that whole "this is a center-right country" crap after the black guy won TWICE despite being called everything in the book. They're also beginning to question the whole "government should be run as a business" crap after Romney lost so spectacularly.

Mind you, the REPUBLICANS still believe that crap.

Damn shame the Democrats are devoted to saving the Republican Party from itself.

[patrice]

460. Completely agree, but there is a point about a centrist of the type that Obama apparently is:

You CANNOT be a centrist if you don't connect EVERYTHING in the full range of demographics from Right TO LEFT.

This means that THE FIRST criteria for "being at the table" is to recognize that you are not the only one/cohort there. As long as one realizes you're dealing with a centrist and centrist CAN'T BE IN THE CENTER WITHOUT EVERYONE, you CAN have a power position in that set of dynamic relationships at the whole table.

One of the reasons that I refer to "what calls itself 'the Left'" is because, unlike classic Liberals who lose creds if they are not inclusive, what calls itself "the Left" appears to be acting in an extremist exclusive manner, as though they are the only ones who deserve to be at the table. As much as I wish that were true, it isn't. I think "the Left" is asserting exclusivity because of the presence of Libertarians in their midst, whom "the Left" is trying to use on certain issues, such as the legalization of cannabis and the repeal of DOMA, and which Libertarians are also trying to use what calls itself "the Left" to advance their Libertarian economic models.

The sub-surface (intentionally and strategically hidden) stress between those two elements in what calls itself "the Left" is causing "the Left" to violate a basic tenet of Liberality: inclusion and that's inclusion even of those elements of the opposition with whom "the Left" disagrees - such as ACA supporters, gun control activists, and NSA programs authentically directed toward preventing terroristic violence at home and on our allies - and that's de riguer Liberal inclusiveness as long as those Rightie elements abide by the second criteria for being at the table: HONESTY.

And honesty is a HUGE problem on the internet where much of this stuff goes down, fuck NetRoots Nation and fuck this board where there are so many people play-acting that any- and every- one else is exactly whatever they claim to be here, so when a putative "Obama supporter" (or anyone else on any enemies list) who may or may not actually be an Obama supporter (or whatever) says something stupid or aggressive or just plain wrong, everyone's hair here goes on fire just exactly as though whoever the miscreant is, they are exactly what they claim to be and they are not trolling. This obvious ignoring of the probabilities makes me doubt very seriously the authenticity of the claims of what calls itself "the Left". And I'm very sad to have to come to that conclusion, but it seem unavoidable to me.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

464. Lately the Dems act like their job is to drag the Republicans out of the ditch on the Right....

Meanwhile those of us in the fast lane on the left are screaming at the Dems to knock off the nostalgia and leave the Republicans behind.

[patrice]

465. I feel certain there is more support for the authentic Left than most people know. I often make

remarks in more or less social situations about the problems the young have with their debts for post-secondary education. Almost without exception, like even today when I was talking to a conservative roofer, the injustice of that situation is publicly acknowledged with remarks about how the jobs that the young wanted have gone away. It's also socially acceptable know to talk about changes in health care and pensions, not to mention job security, that corporations have made.

Yes, Democratic party mainstream NEEDS to stop pandering to Republicans. I live in Kansas and have always felt like a party outsider here.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

466. In Kansas the Democrats think they need to learn about tractor pulls to win.

[patrice]

467. If we could get just one safe but good ASS-KICKING Dem in here to embarass ALL of them!!!

It would be sooooooooooooooooo glorious!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

468. Kucinich was the ONLY Democrat who used the "F" word...

....as in "Farm".

[patrice]

477. Interesting how much support for family farms I have seen here coming from

a political activist I know who is strongly associated with the AFLCIO and also very supportive of anti-Monsanto work. I don't know how much it might have to do with it, but I gave him this link several months ago http://www.ewg.org/ because it has a farm-subsidy database in it.

..............................

Kucinich is lost to me. I've always liked the ideals that we share, and I have several Green friends, but I have always disliked his tactics and have found the Greens to be dilatory organizers at best, hence, what is apparently little or nothing in the way of actual accomplishments outside of PR. This seems the same critique that we have of Barack Obama and the last straw for me was when Kucinich threw his support to Ron/Rand Paul who protect completely uncontrolled private, and therefore SECRET, assault weapons (and therefore probably OTHER kinds of weapons) market all around the world.

Not everyone who picks up a gun has the well being of others truly in mind/heart, nor are they necessarily freedom workers, and even if they did they aren't necessarily even the most competent persons to take on that role and to protect those kinds of death markets with a Grover Norquist style pledge in the Senate http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.2205.IS: to prevent U.S. participation in international agreements to regulate the flow of arms, including American, Russian, and Chinese, weapons, into unstable countries and - then - to try to prevent any form of nascent international justice to do anything about that by mischaracterizing ("Unprincipled! Unprincipled! Unprincipled!!! EVIL INTENT!!!&quot ALL drone programs that, at least in some cases, could be the legitimate desire of at least some of the people for whatever chances they might have for stability through their treaty relations with the USA (e.g. perhaps Mali - and - we STILL don't know what was really going on, one way or the other, in Libya . . . ), all of that is just tooooo contradictory to me.

NOT that contradiction isn't permissable, even desirable, in some specific circumstances, but that I rather doubt that Dennis Kucinich and Ron/Rand Paul have enough or even the right kinds of INFORMATION to be making these broad assumptions about other, especially foreign, people's needs for security and what "contradictions" they should be allowed in order to implement functional responses to their situations. I think we should give those people an opportunity to decide for themselves, instead of assuming that Libertarians buzzy mind-altering-in-more-ways-than-one IDEOLOGY is exactly what those people need to die for as long as the killing is freelance.

Yes, I know, I'm supposed to go all hair-on-fire about "One World Order" and "Big Brother" and Animal Farm crap, but propaganda is propaganda no matter what direction it comes from and there's a HUGE difference between middle-class American 30-somethings opportunities to respond functionally to oppressors and those of poor people in 3rd World countries. I don't know whether we should or shouldn't be involved in these things, but I do think it is the absolute height of cultural imperalism and ideological conceit to assume that any chance the people have to raise their voices (the U.N. or the World Court) is EVIL BIG BROTHER and the cure is more assault weapons, so, pardon me, I'm really angry at Kucinich for being Fux Ewes', the Pauls', and Glenn Greenwald's patsy, so . . . .

FUCK Dennis Kucinich!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

484. I guess you could find fault with anyone if you look hard enough...

Kucinich is no libertarian monster just because he wants to dump the Patriot Act.

He also isn't into covert ops all over the planet in the name of capitalism through the use of capitalism.

Also, while it's true he shows up on FOX "News" he is one of the few they introduce as a Liberal who they don't use as a punching bag and who ends up doing some real good in showing the uninformed bubble dwellers that Liberals aren't trying to destroy mom and apple pie.

[patrice]

485. Indeed we can, so let's ALL of us just be straight up about that to BEGIN with. nt

[karmalk]

348. Most Obama criticism is race hate

been so since 2007

[Hissyspit]

356. No, it's not.

Ridiculous statement.

[CakeGrrl]

350. K/R

[spanone]

351. k.....

[liberal_at_heart]

354. I don't give a shit what you call it. Call it anything you want. I want liberal democrats in office.

Obama is a moderate, corporatist democrat so I will continue to criticize his policies.

[Hissyspit]

357. "It's hate. Period."

No, it's not.

[ProSense]

358. It definitely is for some people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/20/1216665/-Obama-is-a-F-G-FRAUD

Also, I don't believe some of them are Democratic voters. Same diarist:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1216665/50493377#c38

[Hissyspit]

393. Then why "Period?"

[ProSense]

397. I made my point related to the title in the OP. n/t

[ProSense]

488. Don't tell me it's not hate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023052983#post358

[yurbud]

360. If Obama had been president in the 90s, his accomplishments would be more impressive but...

following George W. Bush, we have seen the power the executive can wield, including intimidating his political opponents into agreeing with him.

We expected Obama to use the power of the presidency as vigorously for the benefit of the working and middle class as Bush did for the wealthy.

Instead, he only uses it vigorously for the wealthy and the good he does for the rest of us is subject to checks and balances, bipartisanship and other compromises.

Imagine if he used the powers of surveillance to watch Wall Street, and the Justice Department pursued the big banks and hedge fund managers who broke our and the world economy through deliberate fraud the way he did Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and now Edward Snowden.

Imagine if he was as attentive to the progressives who volunteered, donated, and voted him into office as he is to those same Wall Street crooks.

Bush ruined it for all future presidents. If they say their hands are tied on some issue, that just means they don't want to try.

[Kolesar]

369. Instead, he only uses it vigorously for the wealthy

go read a newspaper or watch PBS newshour.
Ignorance is not bliss

[yurbud]

400. hmmm...which newspapers do you recommend?

I like the Guardian, Telegraph, Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe, and sometimes the New York Times, and Washington Post.

I like NPR and PBS too. They at least try to do what the commercial networks only claim.

I also like Pacifica. It has a definite slant, but they do their homework, cite their sources, and dig into issues where the MSM doesn't dare to tread, and often get it right years ahead of the MSM.

I know what Obama is doing vigorously, what he says he would like but doesn't exactly push, what he doesn't do at all, and what he does that is the exact opposite of what the Democratic base and even most Americans would want.

But thank you for your copy and paste insult.

I'm sure many people here on DU were cowed by you brilliance.

[BlueCaliDem]

370. K&R, Prosense.

This needs to be posted every, oh, three hours a day. Too many anti-Obamanites {who, surprisingly, claim they voted for him, campaigned for him, were betrayed for him, and did it all over again in 2012! Go figure.} infesting this site since he won the presidency.

[stupidicus]

378. my my, how that reeks of desperation

and represents a fine escalation from the troll, Romneyite, "trying to throw the election!" etc -- you know all that stuff that was spewed prior to the election and beyond over the expression of concerns regarding chained cpi.

How did that work out by the way?

As we know, only lovers come to the table armed with that kinda rhetoric.

And haters, as well as racists, etc, project a lot.

[neverforget]

382. Groundhog Day on DU.

I swear I've seen this movie this before

[ucrdem]

383. Summer reruns. They release a new episode every week

in the cold months, and get a new cast every four years, with new band members every two.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

385. " are comfortably ensconced in nice, middle class professional jobs." I am???

People who defend Obama at this point, I dismiss as people who are comfortably ensconced in nice, middle class professional jobs. The professional class. They are complete and I am coming to believe, nearly irredeemable idiots on questions of economics.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/20/1217440/-Obama-did-not-save-the-economy-Social-Security-did

Can someone tell me what that job I do that is "comfortably ensconced"?

[Skip Intro]

386. Sad and desperate bullshit. 'Praise Obama or you're a racist hater!'

Last edited Fri Jun 21, 2013, 10:21 AM - Edit history (2)

Truly sad and desperate bullshit.

[ProSense]

388. No,

"Sad and desperate bullshit. 'Priase Obama or your a racist hater!'"

...your spin is "sad and desperate bullshit."

The spelling isn't all that great either.

[Skip Intro]

389. Yes. Clearly and blatantly yes. Sad and desperate.

Hard to look away though.

Spelling?

[ProSense]

390. LOL! n/t

[yurbud]

401. and continuespattern of beating up instead of listening to progressives who put him in office

[Logical]

428. Attention hound. That is all. Always bumping her own posts. Posting the same links over and over. n-

[politicasista]

402. Kick

Pro probably has me on ignore, but just wanted to say this is a spot-on post.

[patrice]

405. It's about base building; fuck the issues. nt

[Life Long Dem]

407. Makes some sense

"One could assume that people aren't interested in voting against their interests, but have no desire to see the President credited for any of his achievements."

This would explain why you see so many post saying they supported the President and campaigned for him, but are throwing him under the bus because he is a disappointment "now" or something similar.

[Th1onein]

408. Is that anything like "They hate us for our freedoms," Prosense?

It's bull. No one here who has ever voted Democrat hates Obama. Many of us worked very hard to get him elected. And, yes, we expected him to keep his campaign promises, and we forgave him when the Republican Congress blocked him.

But the NSA thing? No. It's wrong. Simply wrong. And that he supports it disappoints all of us who worked so hard to get Obama into office. We are deeply disappointed, and we are making noise. We have every right to do that. We support Democratic ideals, and we want our representatives to support the same.

[Blasphemer]

409. Sometimes I wonder if I was living in a different country in the 1990s than some other people

The posted snippet lost me at comparing the reaction to ex-President to that of a sitting president. Someone needs to go back about 20 years and take a gander at what the media was like towards the President back then. Then, they need to envision what it would have been like if the internet was then what it is today.

[abq e streeter]

414. You've got one HELL of a lot of nerve trying to tell me my dissapointment and disapproval

of much of what I consider to be a disappointment of a president is based on what you claim it is. I am a lifelong Democrat.I cried tears of joy when he was first elected. I got out of bed that very afternoon (election 2008) with a back in so much pain that i could only do that last minute phone banking for a couple of hours before the pain became too great and i had to go back home and back to bed. A dear friend from my college days was the chief of his transition team so I even had a personal connection to wanting him to be the great president I thought he could be.Others have here and elsewhere expressed the very valid reasons for my, and our, disappointment in him. And you have the FUCKING NERVE to tell me it's because I'm a racist or bigot or jealous or whatever.
HOW DARE YOU.

[quakerboy]

419. This

I didn't put as much into as you did, but I also did my part to get him elected. I was tickled when he won his Senate race. And was beyond happy the first time he was elected to the presidency. And was relieved when he won his second election. And now I am a racist, because I am not happy with the direction he has pushed policy.

I wonder if any of these "democrats" who are pushing this unqualified "worship the president or you are a racist" policy here on DU will apologize when we have another white male president who, given the corrupt way our political system runs, people like you and I are likely to have just as much policy disagreement with.

[myrna minx]

424. No because what we are seeing is some rather breathtaking revisionist history, where

in our new history, liberals just loved Bill Clinton's horrendous trade policies like NAFTA. In this new history, liberals also loved DOMA and welfare to work and the telecommunication bill of 1996. This is a world where Ted Kennedy didn't attempt to primary President Carter. In this new history, liberals have not been consistent with their criticisms about the direction of the Country and well as the party, we've just been biding our time to get angry at the "black guy". This is so offensive.

[myrna minx]

423. I don't know who dreamed up this new strategy tactic it's so insulting, offensive and despicable.

So the Democratic Party is gladly welcoming in Republicans who are fleeing their own party, while shoving out the liberals, their solid base, who does the most volunteering, phone banking, door knocking and election day shuttling to make room for the Republicans. Talk bout eating your seed corn. It's breathtaking. I hope the Democratic Party recognizes that calling people who are skeptical or even displeased with some of the President's policies jealous and hateful racists is not a winning strategy. It's offensive as well as diminishes the actual hateful threats the President faces each and every day. Thank goodness the President himself is a better person than some of his loudest fans.

I need to take a longer break away from here. This is McCarthy stuff.

[MisterP]

440. it lets them both hail the "vital center" (though they're more Pelerin/Herman Kahn Dems:

the Best and Brightest are suspect to them--after all, they regretted Vietnam)
AND take credit for ideas of the radical and reformist waves of the 1870s and 90s and 1930s and 60s-70s

[patrice]

418. Those for whom it isn't hate, but is about social & economic justice instead, can recognize that in

this political climate they have synergy with those for whom it is about hate and racism.

That's unfair guilt by association, but it hardly matters if the result is the same: failure, complete failure, on our issues.

[GeorgeGist]

425. TPP.

3 letters that I believe will define the Obama Presidency. For Better or Worse.

[bobduca]

430. Attempts to catapult the propaganda met with resistance this week

What's that smell? flopsweat.

[Lasher]

438. No, it's not.

You are clearly wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023059829#post14

[GoCubsGo]

441. Huh?

Yeah, when it comes to the right, it's all hate and racism. But, to make that claim about people at DU is ridiculous. Certainly, there is a lot of "purism" going on, a lot of conclusion-jumping before all the facts are in, and a lot of seeing things only in black-and-white. But, to claim that it's all about hate and racism is patently absurd.

[ProSense]

442. Please

"Yeah, when it comes to the right, it's all hate and racism. But, to make that claim about people at DU is ridiculous. Certainly, there is a lot of "purism" going on, a lot of conclusion-jumping before all the facts are in, and a lot of seeing things only in black-and-white. But, to claim that it's all about hate and racism is patently absurd."

...don't attribute claims to me that I did not make.

[GoCubsGo]

443. Fine. I misspoke.

I should have said "the Left", rather than "DU". But, my assertion still stands.

[ProSense]

444. And you

"I should have said 'the Left', rather than 'DU'. But, my assertion still stands. "

...still would have been wrong.

[GoCubsGo]

446. No. I am not wrong.

You may think you are not making a blanket accusation, but you are.

[ProSense]

448. No, I'm not.

"You may think you are not making a blanket accusation, but you are.

There is nothing "blanket" about the claim. You want to believe that to justify your argument, but that doesn't make it a fact.

[cali]

451. "It's hate, period." About as blanket as you can get.

It's a fact.

[ProSense]

453. "Are you kidding me? Defending Paula Deen on DU? You're outing yourself"

"'It's hate, period.' About as blanket as you can get."

There was nothing "blanket" about the statement, and the OP wasn't about DUers, unlike this one:

Are you kidding me? Defending Paula Deen on DU? You're outing yourself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023066751

[cali]

473. lol. desperate much?

wow, didn't know 'til now that one could actually smell desperation over the intertubes

[Teamster Jeff]

452. Bullshit

[Blue_In_AK]

454. To me, what is racist

is if we're expected to exempt President Obama from criticism because he's African-American. Aren't we aiming for equality here? If Obama and some hypothetical Caucasian president (GWB, for instance) were to have the same or similar policy that I vehemently disagree with, is it not racist for me to withhold criticism from Obama because he happens to be a man of color when I would have dished it up in heaping quantities to the white guy? Isn't treating him with that kind of deference kind of condescending?

All presidents should be treated equally, Republican, Democrat, black, white or green. It's the policies that matter, not the personalities, the gender or the race.

I am not a racist, and never have been. I don't hate President Obama, and I think he's done some good things. He was not my first, second, or third choice in 2008 for reasons that had nothing to do with race; however, I voted for him, and I'm glad he defeated the Republican candidate both times. BUT there are a lot of things that I disagree with, and I don't want to have the "racist" taunt thrown at me when I say so.

[Puzzledtraveller]

455. I am able to separate the individual from the politician

I like Barack Obama a lot as individual. I tend to disagree with President Obama on several key issues, I criticize the president, not the individual.

[Blue_In_AK]

456. Exactly my point.

Thank you.

[ProSense]

457. The OP

"To me, what is racist is if we're expected to exempt President Obama from criticism because he's African-American. "

...made no claim that the President should be "exempt" from criticism. In fact, it states that criticism is to be expected.

"I am not a racist, and never have been."

I didn't accuse you of being of being one.

[treestar]

459. So what did you say when Clinton signed NAFTA

and welfare reform. The AEDPA? The new restrictions on immigrants, IIRAIRA?

[Blue_In_AK]

463. Don't get me started on Clinton.

I haven't been happy with a president since JFK was shot.

[galileoreloaded]

458. An apt quote

Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it. You know, I just… do things.

[DirkGently]

486. What is the ACLU'S "hate" / "racist" / "envy" motivation?

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

"This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "It is the equivalent of requiring every American to file a daily report with the government of every location they visited, every person they talked to on the phone, the time of each call, and the length of every conversation. The program goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy."

The ACLU is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which was the recipient of a secret FISA Court order published by The Guardian last week. The order required the company to "turn over on 'an ongoing daily basis' phone call details" such as who calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made. The lawsuit argues that the government's blanket seizure of and ability to search the ACLU's phone records compromises sensitive information about its work, undermining the organization's ability to engage in legitimate communications with clients, journalists, advocacy partners, and others.

"The crux of the government's justification for the program is the chilling logic that it can collect everyone's data now and ask questions later," said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project. "The Constitution does not permit the suspicionless surveillance of every person in the country."

Specious argument. We are not in an eight-year hiatus in which the government cannot be criticized because a Democrat is in office.

No on thinks that, and no one arguing it is arguing honestly.

[Jamaal510]

487. Much of it seems to be just tunnel-vision.

and being ill-informed about basic civics. It took the GOP roughly 8 years to run up a deficit and unemployment. Obama never had a progressive super-majority in the Senate to work with (thanks a lot, Lieberman), and the House has been GOP-controlled for the past several years. These people that the OP talks about expect him to still be able to do things like close GITMO and to create jobs faster, but it doesn't exactly work that way. Congress is who passes the laws, and unfortunately, the Republicans are unwilling to govern. They've blocked jobs bills and the closure of GITMO, just to spite the man currently occupying the Oval Office. And this has been happening with numerous other things that the President has supported, as well.
I wish more self-described progressives/liberals would get with the program and go after the real culprits of the country's troubles instead of people who are already in sync with much of their agenda.

[Pirate Smile]

489. K & R