Reply #41: In total, definitive agreement

[frazzled]

And could add a dozen more points to the argument if I had the time today.

On the other hand, this internecine fight is not going to end well. I doubt that the kind of subtle, subconscious racism driving the rabid criticism of this president (and I don't think that's the only factor involved, but it is certainly a major element) is going to be convinced of its own existence or mend the error of its ways. The argument has deep validity, but it's going to drive the offending parties away even more and make them dig their heels in further. I've seen it going on since the primaries. Hell, people (on OUR side) were already out in droves criticizing the president for all the inaugural balls, and no amount of explaining that states organize their own balls would convince them that he was not putting on airs in a time of financial crisis. Policy criticisms came before day one; appointments generated howls (many the same as Clinton's, such as Larry Summers, who was hailed as an architect of the Clinton miracle economy but vilified from day one as a Wall Street insider).

I think we need to reach the reachable and give up on the David Sirotas and the anarchist elements and the disaffected primary pouters and focus on those who are silently supportive or leaning toward support. When you do electoral politics, this is how you focus your resources. You never try to convince people who have made up their minds to vote for someone else that they are wrong and should change their minds. You contact the "plusses," the people whose support you know you can get but who sometimes need to be roused from their slumbers.

Let the others keep looking for Mr(s) Ideal/Untested candidate and utopian scheme. They're lost to the real world, and will never admit that a double-standard is what is driving them.