If it's not racism, then what is it?

[Drunken Irishman]

I've been gone from DU for a few months now and thought I would stop in to see if things had cooled off a bit. To my dismay, they've only erupted even more and the entire site has dissolved into a hate-fest toward our President and other members. We've seen accusations of racism, homophobia and other venom spewed from all sides of the debate. It's enough for me to click 'log out' and never return again. I said in my post about taking a break that I would reevaluate where things stood in a few months and that's exactly what I'm doing.

The decision is irrelevant, though, to this post. So, I won't bore you with some LeBron James-like mega-decision. I'll either keep posting or I won't. No matter.

Anyway, when I did come online today, I noticed posts about racism from the left and how it's being used against Obama critics unfairly and unjustly - with many members pouncing on the narrative that this is basically all Obama supporters have left in their bag of tricks. I understand the push back. No one likes to be called a racist. Even racists don't like being called racist.

I don't know who is and isn't truly a racist on DU. Hell, for all you know, I'm really a 40 year old woman with Italian heritage instead of a 20-something man whose family came over from Ireland. This is the internet and most of you are just as much a stranger to everyone else as the random person in the coffee shop. What you are on DU isn't necessarily what you are in real life and that means we're all operating under our own illusions of what we think you are because our perception is entirely molded around your online persona. I think we've all, over the years, judged others here on how they represent themselves - good or bad - without ever knowing if that's how they are in real life. I'd also think that we are much more different online than in real life because it's easier with supposed anonymity to express ourselves ... especially to a group of people we most likely will never meet.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, we still know little about each other except from what we can glean from each others' posts.

So, I don't want to suggest some people are racists and some aren't. I don't know. I don't know because I don't know you. But conversely, for some people, it's hard to put into context the constant hatred Obama has seen from some here - a consistent attack that has not let up at all over the four and a half years of his presidency. This goes beyond just disagreeing with some of his policies and a portion of his leadership and instead, compulsively at times, attacking everything he does - or only posting negative things about him. There are members, and I don't want to name 'em for fear of calling people out, who have, to this day, said hardly anything positive about Obama. I mean, from the day he won the nomination in 2008 to right now, they have maybe posted a handful of positive threads - if that. And there are others who have said only negative things about the President.

Is it racism? Maybe not. But if it isn't racism, then what is it? What is the driving force behind the constant criticism of Obama that has dominated much DU since his election?

I get that some are disappointed with his leadership and I understand many of you had high hopes for a Democratic president after eight years of Bush. But it seems much of the attacks we're seeing toward Obama are completely irrational. So irrational, that it leaves a great deal of Obama supporters questioning the motivation behind it - especially when it comes from the same collection of posters who have slammed Obama at every turn without ever offering even a token praise when warranted.

This is something that I've experienced since 2009 and I've had difficulty expressing it without sounding like I'm attacking. But while some of you believe Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of his hardcore supporters, from my view, there are a collection of you who believe he can do no right.

It's been a constant theme since his inauguration.

I look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell. For two years, between 2009 and 2010, the left howled and railed and some even questioned whether Obama was a homophobe. They attacked, they said he was dragging his feet, not doing enough and could easily overturn DADT with an executive order. But eventually, Obama got it overturned the way he wanted - the way that would have made it permanent and not risked the potential of the next president coming into office and signing an executive order overturning Obama's executive order - which would have certainly happened, I believe, had Romney won in 2012 - though, maybe not. But was that the risk any of you were willing to take? I guess so, because, at the time, it was much the ideal decision of DU. What path was ultimately better for the country and for gay rights - the one the President was derided for taking or the path advocated here on DU? I think we have that answer. Yet the hardcore criticizers couldn't even be bothered to thank Obama for staying with it, working with Democratic lawmakers and finally overturning a law that was bigoted and hateful. That's not to say some Obama critics didn't speak up and say, "you know, good deal all around...", but you know if you made those comments or not, so, if you did, obviously this isn't directed at you.

I look at healthcare reform. Obama was seriously in a no-win situation with this bill. It was a no-win situation because it's proven a no-win situation since Teddy Roosevelt tried to reform our healthcare system. Every president that fought to do it failed and some failed monumentally where it put their presidencies in jeopardy. Jimmy Carter famously lost support of Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate over healthcare reform and, among other reasons, it led to Kennedy mounting a primary challenge in 1980 that eventually played a role in Carter's demise. A little over a decade later, Bill Clinton nearly saw his presidency undone by failing to reform healthcare. He was able to pull back from the brink - but it wasn't without taking a huge hit and radically adjusting his administration's goals. Obama started this whole ordeal already the underdog because history had proven it could not be done. Worse, we were still mired in one of the worst recessions in American history.

The left fragmented. The right unified. There was a lot of heated language on both sides and eventually, when it looked doomed after Scott Brown's election (another thing blamed on Obama), healthcare reform passed - barely. That barely is important because much of the left advocated for a far more liberal healthcare reform bill. They wanted a public option (hell, so did I) at the least, and, if at all possible, total universal healthcare. They got neither. They felt jobbed. I can understand the sentiments. But I also couldn't understand why the blame went to Obama, as if he was the one solely responsible for a reform package that didn't placate the base. Let's get real - the public option had limited support among lawmakers and universal healthcare had no support. Sure, Democrats held huge majorities in both the House and Senate, but it took compromise to get every Democrat on board. There was essentially three options - go with what we got, go for smaller reforms (advocated by Rahm Emanuel, opposed by Nancy Pelosi and Obama) or go for broke on something that was essentially dead on arrival. The left wanted Obama to do the latter. In theory, it sounds good because it's standing up for true liberalism as I've been told over and over by those on the left, they just want a president who advocates and advances their causes - even if they ultimately fail. So, I think we can all agree (though, for some odd reason, this is still debated) that had Obama done the last option, had he pushed for universal healthcare, there would've been no healthcare reform. Maybe in the end, it would've proven successful for his presidency (certainly the returns we're seeing right now means it wouldn't have proven successful for the American people), but it would have also meant we got no foot into the door toward a truly universal healthcare plan. Right now, at least it's a start and, prior to 2010, that starting line looked too distant for anyone to ever realistically believe we would be able to cross it.

But even today, Obama is often hit harder by the left than the right on healthcare reform. I'm sure there are many who are still upset that it didn't include the public option or wasn't a true universal package. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it put the country on the right course and has helped benefit millions of Americans and will only continue to benefit millions more when it's fully rolled out in 2014. Moreover, I think we all agree it's immensely better than the status quo.

Then there is Iraq. For a good portion of Obama's first term, the narrative here was that he lied on Iraq. He was keeping us there, he went back on his promise to bring the troops home. He was just like Bush in this regard. Over time, the pullout began and even then, many hit back saying it wasn't enough ... it wasn't good enough. And then the war officially came to an end. Not much talk about Iraq these days - how the President stepped in and finished the war like he said he would. Sure, there are the stories slamming the actual war itself, but we've moved on to Afghanistan - a situation that is playing out almost eerily similar to what happened with Obama & Iraq.

I'm sure when Obama officially ends the Afghanistan War, there will be a few here who will find another reason to criticize his foreign policy.

Oh wait...

There was Egypt. We all remember Egypt. Obama wasn't doing enough. He was too passive. I remember those threads. We all agreed Hosni Mubarak had to go - but Obama wasn't doing enough to get him to go. I don't think anyone really knew what we wanted him to do, except to put more pressure on him, but certainly we wouldn't want to intervene militarily? But there was only one option from the left - Mubarak Out and Obama wasn't moving fast enough.

Hosni Mubarak is out. Even though, in early 2011, Obama was mocked constantly from the left AND the right for his tepid response.

Then Libya happened and everyone's views kinda changed. Gaddafi wasn't a good guy, I think we could all agree with that, but there wasn't near the outcry, even though a revolution was taking place - as was the slaughtering of actual people. The left, who spent much of early 2011 demanding Obama do something with Egypt, then turned around and gasped when Obama did something foreceful with Libya. What business is it of ours to meddle in another country's affairs?

It was a legitimate question - just not a consistent question. Some even floated the idea of impeachment.

Now we're seeing it with Syria. A situation that is dire. It's not just a civil war now. It's something much worse and while all options on the table suck, I promise you Assad is no better than Mubarak - the same guy so many here advocated for his ouster back in 2011.

But Syria is just another extension of Obama's warmongering. He's a warmonger. I hear it all the time from guys like Noam Chomsky! So, you know, it must be true.

This leads into the next constant, and often overblown, attack I see - Obama is just like Bush. Yup. He's Bush's third and fourth terms. With the NSA revelations, something we probably all knew was happening anyway but didn't care to make hay of it all these years, the drumbeats of this attack have only grown louder. It's ridiculous. It's only used by ideologues who look at things in black and white. But as we all know, government isn't black and white. There is rarely any absolutes. Everything is muddled and that makes it harder for us to accept certain positions. Take Guantanamo, Obama is constantly attacked for not closing it down and yet, the blame mostly lies in Congress. Bernie Sanders wants it gone? Then he better round up the votes - put his money where is mouth is. Go build enough support in the senate to show Obama it can be done. But this continues the trend of blaming Obama without blaming those who truly are responsible. Even today, even right now, there are posters ridiculing Obama for saying we need to close Guantanamo because, gosh, if he really believed it, he'd do it! I actually saw someone say that if there is a will, there is a way and that is absolutely not how this situation works.

So, instead of putting pressure on Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, where the pressure belongs, we'll continue to make snarky and snide comments to the one guy who is actually trying to do something we all want done. But that's how it's often been the last few years. It was the same with healthcare reform, DADT, DOMA and Mubarak - Obama is all talk but where is the action?

The action comes ... but as we've seen, he can't do it on his own. We want him to, we believe he can, but our government isn't set up for that. Yet that doesn't change the fact we will constantly blame Obama for congresses foibles. But he's just like Bush.

Because Bush ended the Iraq War. Bush got bin Laden. Bush appointed two pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Bush reformed our healthcare system. Bush opposed DOMA. Bush came out in support of gay marriage during an election year. Bush signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Bush repealed DADT. Bush actually raised taxes on the rich. Bush actually tried to reform Wall Street. Bush expanded pell grant funding. Bush was a constant supporter of women's rights, gay rights, voting rights and other civil rights. Bush was beloved around the world. Bush added gender, sexual orientation and disability to hate crimes legislation. Bush extended benefits to same-sex federal employees. Bush supported affirmative action. Bush actually said global warming was a real thing. Bush truly invested in the U.S. economy.

I could go on ... but you get the point. Bush never did any of those things. We could line up the comparisons and the differences and it wouldn't even be close. Of course, those same comparisons would probably work for every single president in modern American history because most every president operates under the same template when it comes to national and international politics - from Woodrow Wilson to FDR all the way through to Barack Obama. There will always be similarities between Obama and Bush because they were presidents. But the differences are far starker and instead of focusing on those differences, the fact society is better today than it was during the Bush administration, we focus on the similar aspects of their presidency. Those who attack Obama constantly, constantly use this line of attack and never concede, or admit, the good he's done.

You know, it's interesting - Obama is in Berlin, or was, I don't know if he's still there, and the reception he received, along with the reception he received in Northern Ireland, truly shows the disconnect between the American left (and right) and most the rest of the world. Our president still remains a very popular figure in most parts (though, I suspect he isn't in the Middle East - which isn't a surprise) and why? I'm just told over and over here by American intellectuals and liberals that he's just Bush with a tan (google that one) ... but they hated Bush. I don't remember thousands of people lining the streets in Ireland (or Northern Ireland) wanting to see Bush. Hell, I remember this from Dublin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6695-2004Jun25.html

And then there was this when Obama visited:



Are they delusional? Are they woodchucks?

But he's such a disappointment! They just don't understand!

Obama is probably more popular in England and Germany and Ireland and Australia than their leaders are and that says a lot about him, our country and our position in the world.

But he's just Bush.

For me, it's hard to reconcile much of this hatred. I can understand disappointment and displeasure with his policy - but there is voicing concern and outright attack that leaves many questioning the motives behind those attacks. Is it racism? Maybe not - but if not racism, then what is it? That is a legitimate question because it seems some here are only content on judging Obama by his faults instead of his whole body of work - you know, saving the U.S. auto industry, the economy, reforming healthcare, embracing equality, ending DADT, pushing for the end of DOMA, ending the Iraq War, putting us on the path to ending the Afghanistan War, trying to close Guantanamo even with a hostile congress, appointing two wonderful, qualified women to the Supreme Court, supporting a woman's right to choose more so than any president in American history, pushing for immigration reform even though he's doing it with a Republican House and a combative Senate, trying to advance sensible gun control and building a better, stronger relationship with our allies so that we're not the isolated country Bush turned us into during his presidency.

And that's just half of the good Obama has done for this country. But none of it matters. It wasn't good enough. Healthcare reform wasn't good enough. He didn't end the Iraq War fast enough. He took too long to overturn DADT. He isn't doing enough when it comes to DOMA. He really doesn't mean it when he says he wants to close Guantanamo because if he did, it would be closed. He only came out in support of gay marriage because of political opportunism. He's a neo-con. He's a hawk. He's indecisive. He's a corporatist. His stimulus wasn't big enough (even though it was the biggest in U.S. history). He's in the back pockets of all the banks. He's a DLCer. He's a third-wayer. He's ruining the Democratic Party. He's driving the youth to vote Republican. He's a DINO. He's a Republican. He's to the right of Ronald Reagan. He wants to gut Social Security. He wants to gut medicare. He is ruining the middle class. He's an elitist. He's too powerful. He's not powerful enough. He's going to get us into a war with Egypt/Libya/Syria. He can't be trusted. He's a coward. He has no backbone.

These are the attacks I've seen here on DU over the last four and a half years. Many of these attacks are also from the racist right-wing media. When attacks are irrational, you have to question why they're irrational in the first place. We do it all the time with the right-wing and we concede their irrationality toward Obama, you know, when they call him fascist or socialist or Marxist or communist, is because they can't handle there is a black man in the White House.

That doesn't mean the left is racist for making very similar irrational arguments (Obama has been called fascist by both the left and the right) - but there has to be an explanation for that irrationality. What is it? To wonder if it is racism, when the attacks are so eerily similar to the racist attacks from the right, is not entirely unreasonable. I don't think it's true for a vast majority of DUers or liberals ... but there does appear to be a collection of people who, from day one decided they didn't like Obama and were going to express that dislike at every chance they got - without ever admitting when he did something right.

To those members, to those attackers, their reasoning is always suspect. It's always suspect when someone spews nothing but hate. It's suspect when the right does it and it's suspect when the left does it as well.

So, if it's not racism, then what is the reasoning behind the often irrational attacks toward our President?

[sibelian]

1. Well, that's certainly a lot of things people seem to disagree with Obama about.

Maybe the disagreement is actually about the things themselves?

[840high]

164. I have criticized

every Pres. when Idon't agree with them.

[NYC_SKP]

2. It takes a thicker skin than ever to be on the DU. But it's still my favorite site.

Glad to see you, D.I.!

[JustAnotherGen]

80. +1

[msongs]

3. legitimate criticism of obama and his policies is neither "hater" nor "racist". Oddly enough

similar legitimate criticism of bush was never considered to be racist on DU

[KittyWampus]

27. Some posters ONLY post criticism. Ever.

[Logical]

43. Some defend everything he does. No different. n-t

[treestar]

176. Then if one side can do it why can't the other?

And why on a board for Democrats? We put up with this from right wingers and we come here and have to hear practically the same amount of hatred.

[Logical]

192. The difference is that the DU people complaining vote for and...

Support dems. If not I say ban them.

Obama is our guy. But I can still think he has been a disappointment.

I bet you and I agree on 90% of liberal topics. So we have to argue on the 10%.

[Coccydynia]

75. Some posters only post love

Criticism does not equate to hatred. And when someone asks you to "make them do it", I don't see how you can achieve that goal without identifying what they are not doing, or what they shouldn't be doing.

[Katashi_itto]

181. Some posters still like their spoon.

And they name them too.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GyGLZiwrA_o/S_2LopLRSsI/AAAAAAAAA9M/GaFaQsLsciw/s1600/enhanced+spoon+1.JPG
....Oh I don't have a name for mine.

[Kolesar]

168. The threads get bolloxed by the same old assclowns piling on

It's like the comments section following a Yahoo News story. The clowns post the same phrases that they had posted several times a day ever since a news story broke.
-drones
-chained CPI
-NSA, Snowden, etc

[Katashi_itto]

183. Spoons.

[morningfog]

193. So what? Shouldn't we focus on the problems?

Just criticism does not make one a hater or a racist.

[Ter]

300. And some only post positives

Texas4Obama, OneHandle, ProSense, and the OP poster all this to the point where Obama can do no wrong.

[jeff47]

55. The complaints go well beyond legitimate criticism

Legitimate:

I think Obama should have worked harder for single-payer
Obama should end drone strikes. They are a bad idea.
W should not be spying on Americans without a warrant.
I wish Obama would be more like Sen. Warren about (insert subject here)

Not legitimate:

OMG!!!! OBAMA IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER BECAUSE HE WON'T OVERRIDE CONGRESS AND CLOSE GITMO. I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ANOTHER DEMOCRAT AGAIN.
OBAMA IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER BECAUSE HE DID NOT GET SINGLE PAYER AND MUST BE IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY.
OBAMA IS NOT ADVANCING (insert pet issue here) DESPITE THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE, SO I'M DONE SUPPORTING DEMOCRATS

While the all-caps is a slight exaggeration, the rest of that is extremely common on DU.

[vi5]

64. I've never seen anyone say those "not legitimate" things.

Not once have I seen anyone call him "the worst president ever" or advocate for his impeachment (especially for not getting single payer).

I have seen plenty of people post the "legitimate" things and get dismissed and mocked.

[jeff47]

67. Then you aren't looking at many threads

There's plenty of "done with Democrats" posts in almost any Obama criticism thread.

[vi5]

74. I've seen those. Still doesn't address the rest.

So someone said he should be impeached for not advancing single payer? Really? Because I haven't seen that. Have a link to that one?

Someone called him "the worst president ever"? I haven't seen anyone say that either. Perhaps the worst Democratic president ever which I don't agree with but I wouldn't exactly argue with someone who said it because there's a case to be made.

So if someone feels strongly about a particular issue it's just their "pet cause"? Seriously? So what defines a "pet cause". Do you get to decide that? Who gets to decide what a "legitimate" reason is to be upset with the president? There are a lot of causes and issues that he has been bad on that to some people are life and death.

I've seen plenty of people say their done with Democrats and give a laundry list of extremely valid reasons (such as the ones you deem "legitimate). Reasons and positions on issues which would have been without question valid and which would be unthinkable that a Democrat would have to defend being upset with, let alone be unthinkable that they'd be attacked by other Democrats for not being in favor of. But on the other hand if you deem them "not legitimate" well then clearly the rest of us should just shut the fuck up, right?

[enlightenment]

232. I don't recall seeing that level of animosity, either.

And I look at a lot of threads.

Could you please post a link or two? You seem to remember the comments very well, so perhaps you recall what threads they are in.

The comment you just made - "done with Democrats" - is quite a bit different from the examples you listed. Yes, some folks get pretty upset and decide (for the moment they are writing) to toss the baby out with the bathwater . . . but it really isn't the same thing as those very nasty examples.

So, please, post a link or two - it would be interesting to see those comments in context.

[Progressive dog]

288. I agree

The President has been attacked for not doing things that he couldn't legally do and the next day attacked for being authoritarian.
Many of the attackers are the same people; that is unexplainable as a rational disagreement.
If it isn't racism, it looks like it to me.

[Mojorabbit]

138. Yep. nt

[ismnotwasm]

4. Thank you for your thoughtful OP

I don't have an answer.

While I understand and support thoughtful criticism against any politician, as I tell my daughter, who is conservative-but-not insane, the left and right hate Obama often for the exact same thing- just from a different perspective. Hard to figure that one.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Thank you.

I won't bore you with some LeBron James-like mega-decision.

Your modesty is remarkable.

[Quantess]

6. Legitimate criticisms. That's what.

I didn't like it when W did the same things. I despised Bush for enacting certain policies and I'm not pleased that Obama chooses to continue them.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

[MADem]

7. It's the old "Gotta work twice as hard to get half the credit" thing going on.

It's something, that's for sure.

Good rant.

[redqueen]

15. Ding ding fucking ding.

Outstanding OP, Drunken Irishman. Thank you and K&R

[Number23]

25. lol MADem, sometimes I SWEAR you must be black. At least a little bit on the inside

You "get" things. You just get them, don't you?

[JustAnotherGen]

83. Yeah!

What this trouble maker said times too! .

MADem is filled with awesome sauce!

[MADem]

140. I am a little bit of everything--a "Heinz 57" as my Granny would say.

I may not be a child of the universe, but I am a child from the four corners of the globe!

I got enough "assorted minority" in me to get the stank-eye from EVERYONE...and I was always the one who got stuck doing the "minority shit" at work for that reason!



I roll with it, what else can I do?

[JoePhilly]

108. This "almost 50" white guy agrees.

Every criticism of Obama is not racist.

But as a white guy, I can see it. And because I am white, and almost 50, other whites say things that are subtly racist, assuming that I, being white, will agree.

And when I speak up, and I do, I'm told to chill out, it was just a joke. Just a joke that would never be told if an African American was actually there.

Now, are those on DU who attack Obama daily, racists? Na, the vast majority aren't. Some have real concerns.

But it is interesting that some of them get very upset when the role of racism is brought up. Some get very defensive about it, even if they were not called out in any way.

The right wing likes to take their race problem and try to flip it ... such that the GOP is not the racists, its Obama and the blacks who vote for him ... THEY are the racists. I think I now see the same tactic here on DU.

Under Obama ... we averted a 2nd great depression. The stock market has doubled. Housing prices are rising. UE has dropped from 10.2% to 7.6%. The Iraq war has ended. Afgan war is closing down. OBL is dead. GM is alive. DADT is ended. And those with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied insurance.

But apparently, Obama sucks.

Again, as a white guy, I honestly think that if another white guy accomplished these things ... we'd be carving his face on Mt Rushmore.

[MADem]

130. +1

It is what it is.

Very well said, too, might I add.

[Liberal Veteran]

157. I wish I could upvote your comment 1000 times.

As a fellow almost 50 white guy, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[JoePhilly]

163. Thanks. At times I wish more of us would call Bullshit on this stuff.

We know the dog whistles. We heard them growing up.

And its not just because we want to hear them. It not just what is said. Its the context in which its said. The look on the face of the person who says it.

And ... we also know when someone is blowing the dog whistle in a manner that is intended to be heard more broadly, and yet still be deniable.

[pscot]

186. I'm not real happy with the President

But the tone of the conversation around here is getting too warm. The racial challenges being tossed around seem particularly careless and dangerous. I hate it, and I wish people would knock it off.

[Liberal Veteran]

201. It might have something to do with the tone and frequency of the attacks.

Look, I know it is far easier to tear down than to build, but lately it has gotten to proportions that some people (myself included) are beginning to question where the viciousness is actually originating from.

It seems disproportional to reality at times. It seems very odd to me that we can question the ideological standing and purity of purpose in our president, but not turn that same camera on ourselves.

[pscot]

277. I don't disagree

I just wish both sides would dial it back before it spins completely out of control. The race issue carries such a huge charge. People are playing tiddly winks with live grenades. There will be casualties among the just and unjust alike. Manny and ProSense should both be taken to the woodshed.

[Bobbie Jo]

148. This.

[nomorenomore08]

149. Exactly. You said what I was trying to think of.

If Obama were a white man, in all likelihood he would be receiving far more credit for the good he's done, and far less vehement criticism for the bad.

It's not a matter of "Obama can do no wrong" - I've disagreed strongly with him much of the time, especially on foreign policy - it's a matter of balance.

[treestar]

177. Yes indeed. eom

[Scootaloo]

236. +∞²

Obama is very definitely being held to a very different standard than any president prior. The "We expect more from a democrat" argument falls flat when you look at the shit Clinton got away with - and still gets away with without a peep from the left.

It's not that people are brooding under white hoods about how much they hate blacks or anything - it's because American society is deeply, possibly indelibly racist. You can't help but absorb it growing up, internalizing it, seeing it as just "how the world works." This nation, its politics, its media, even the foundational rhetoric, makes the assumption that white male hetero cisgendered property-owners are the "normal," and everyone outside that standard must continually be proven against it.

[reusrename]

268. No doubt it is a different standard.

I think it has more to do with party affiliation than race, though. And I think you're just dissociating from reality if you think the left would be comfortable with Clinton running Gitmo or this drone program.

[Whisp]

8. There were/are a couple of rapists here on DU, so why would we be surprised if there are racists? n/

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Could it be about the NSA? And spying of Americans?

Sometimes things are not about race...

Just a thought

Will offer you this.


http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/13410

As a first and last answer to your OP.

[carolinayellowdog]

10. a single explanation won't suffice for two very different phenomena

If you conflate "a few who have been virulently anti-Obama for years" and "the many who lately are outraged by the NSA revelations" and try to come up with a one-size-fits-all explanation, it's not likely to be accurate for either category.

[quinnox]

11. so, after an absence you just couldn't resist when you saw the "they must be racists!" OP

posted by the Obama hard core supporter, and just had to get in on it too. Nice.

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. Exactly, totally spur of the moment

the issue of race doesn't preoccupy or color this persons reasoning at all.

[BeyondGeography]

12. I think there are a couple of problems re. Obama and his opponents here

First, they are convinced that liberal/progressive values aren't aggressively enough embraced and advanced by the President, and that he hasn't made the most of his tenure as a result. There is enormous frustration about the long-term arc of the country since Reagan and that the President hasn't been as unabashedly liberal as his predecessors were conservative.

I have to say I have very often shared this frustration.

Second, the President's most vocal opponents severely underestimate the degree of difficulty involved with advancing a liberal agenda in this country at this time. The most clear example for me is the constant harping about FDR and what he was able to achieve, without even mentioning the sweeping majorities (3-to-1 in the Senate at its peak, e.g.) that he enjoyed compared with the scant margins the President has worked with, when he has even had the margins.

That said, the President was handed two wars (both of which he will end), the worst economy since the 1930's (which he has at least stabilized), George Bush's outrageous tax cuts (which he has ended for the wealthiest Americans), one of the least efficient health care systems in the developed world (which he has overhauled), a broad set of retrograde social policies, from equal pay to LGBT rights to immigration (where his commitment to progressive change can not be questioned), relationships around the world that needed to be rehabilitated (which they have, almost without exception), and a global terrorist threat that has been greatly diminished. This has been a successful presidency by any objective measure, one that our opponents would be venerating to the political heavens if they had anything remotely equivalent.

So why the continued outright hatred, per your OP. i don't see it as racism, more likely American-style impatience and, too often, naiveté.

That said, it's a thrill to see you back and hope you'll stick around.

[Vanje]

205. I think we are often on opposite "sides"

but I agree with most of this post.
Thankyou.

That said, I will continue to strongly criticize appointments and policies I disagree with.

I just hope I can do it here without being considered a racist, a "Paul-bot", a "Hill-bot"or a Naderite.

[BeyondGeography]

212. Me too

[progressoid]

13. Ask Cornel West, Harry Belafonte, Tavis Smiley, etc.

Are you saying that our criticisms are based in racism, while theirs are not?

[PragmaticLiberal]

72. I can't speak for Belafonte

But West and Smiley's criticisms are in large part rooted in thier wounded egos and jealousy.

[HangOnKids]

118. You Can't Speak For West Or Smiley Either

Got some proof of their wounded egos and jealousy? It is spelled their BTW not thier.

[progressoid]

187. So NOT racism then.

[PragmaticLiberal]

273. I don't believe all of the criticism is justified.

But for the most part I don't think it's based in racism...at least on DU.

[MADem]

167. Etc? Etc. like Skip Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton, Tom Joyner

and the members of the CBC? They don't agree with brothers Cornel, Harry and Tavis, but never mind that.

At least some of Cornel West's and Tavis Smiley's objections ARE race-based, fwiw: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-20063860.html

That was written by Melissa Harris Perry--maybe she's not black enough, either?

Tavis apparently was embarrassed enough to get his post on the topic scrubbed from the primary source, but it lives on in archives and caches. Obama wouldn't kiss Tavis's ring, and Tavis ain't the gatekeeper anymore--that's what that's all about.

And Harry Belafonte doesn't like anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro, so he's hardly a
touchstone for black political thought.

Three outliers do not create a consensus, underwhelming or otherwise.

[progressoid]

175. Right. And Melissa Harris Perry has also criticized the President...

does that mean she's a racist too?

While the OP may not understand it, sometimes criticism from the left is just criticism.

[MADem]

203. Criticism is one thing; constant, nitpicking beatdowns are another.

Sometimes criticism from the left is just criticism, but sometimes, it's something else.

All I can tell you is that I know it when I see it.

[HiPointDem]

14. there's no such big mystery as you pretend.

[Nye Bevan]

16. If Hillary was president, it would presumably be sexism (nt)

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. That and maybe ageism

[Nye Bevan]

20. I was saving ageism in case Biden is our next president (nt)

[treestar]

178. I think it could well be worse in that case.

the disappointed left would be even more vitriolic, as I suspect many may actually be libertarians, and leftists can by misogynistic.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Welcome back Drunken Irishman

[JI7]

21. just look at the Trayvon Martin Case, how can anyone who is truly liberal

deny there is a racism. easily make Trayvon any other race. and especially if you put a black man in the place of zimmerman and a white kid in the place of trayvon. would there be this much debate ? no, it

and to think the same does not apply to the President ?

the comparisons to the other countries are very important because these nations tend to be more liberal than us. they have worked their system so they often have better health care , better public education etc. things democrats/liberals here are always trying to work towards.

those people who worked and continue to support that system love Obama. i work in a place where i often deal with people from other countries. Obama is very much loved and admired by them. these people certainly don't think Obama is some evil type that people on here make him out to be.

but i already feel that there are wingnuts who attack from the left on here like Better believe it did. and then you got the ron paul types and conspiracy theory types. these ones often fit into both .

[zeemike]

37. Comparing Travon Martin to President Obama?

Get real...this s getting downright ridiculous.
To those that want to call me a racist because I strongly oppose the spying on the US citizens against the 4th amendment I say fuck you....and if you can't see the difference between racism and real concerns for where this country is headed then you need a head check...
Look in your own heart and see why you say such things.

[JI7]

38. look at the outrage when Obama said if he had a son he would look like Trayvon

[cali]

40. outrage on DU? where?

[JI7]

44. one i remember is some shit from emilyg

[Vanje]

209. Oh .Correct me if I'm wrong

but the poster you specify was shown to be a longtime Right-winged troll, and a Birther to boot, and was . quite correctly, escorted from the premises.
I hope you dont believe EmilyG was typical of DUers in general.

[zeemike]

59. I saw no outrage here....and I was here then.

You must be thinking of a right wing site....I know there was some there.

[cali]

22. since your op is, at least to some degree, a response to mine, I'd like to respond

to a few of the things you say.

first of all, I didn't criticize Obama on healthcare reform. I understood that his options were limited and I thought a fruitless push for universal healthcare would set healthcare reform back for years to come.sd

Scott Brown. No, there was not a lot of blaming Obama for his winning.

Libya. I disagreed with him and no, there is nothing inconsistent about wanting to avoid such a military involvement. Furthermore, if there were calls for his impeachment over that on DU, there sure as hell weren't many of them.

Now, the NSA business. In 2007 Obama vowed to filibuster the 2008 FISA Amendment Act of 2008. He swiftly backtracked. And that is not the only promise he's broken. And just because YOU think it's overblown, does not make it so.


Syria: I promise you that many of the rebel groups are NO better than Assad and some are worse. This is a dreadful idea.

Popularity in Europe. Not so much anymore. but who cares?

Obama hit harder by the left on healthcare than on the right? Total nonsense. making stuff up doesn't bolster your argument.

I could go on but really why bother. I like Obama. I disagree with a considerable number of his policies. It's that simple.

[Number23]

23. A brave, intelligent and excellent post. Thanks for posting it

I am sure that there will be few intelligent answers to your questions. And there is no question in my mind that some of this is racism. NO DOUBT IN MY MIND. But I also think that some of it is paranoia, deep overall unhappiness, a deep distrust of any and all government and other factors at play. Some folks here are absolutely terrified of the OTHER, and there is no doubt in my mind that The Other can very easily translate to people of color and often does.

DI, at the end of the day, I think the only thing we can do is take some measure of comfort in the fact that most of the people who engage in exactly the behavior you've mentioned are in the margins, precisely where they belong.

[Maedhros]

24. The OP asks "What is the driving force behind the constant criticism of Obama"

Could it be his policies?

[OrwellwasRight]

229. +1

[babylonsister]

26. And this is why we need you here, DI.

So very nice to 'read' you; yes, I have a perception of you, and it's a good one despite never having met you.
It happens.
Please hang out and write; good for you, good for me!

[KittyWampus]

28. The constant critics who never give Obama credit are ratfuckers, Greens, Cynics or ideologues.

There may be some racism. But it's probably only from the ratfuckers (rightwings posing as lefties).

[sibelian]

31. I think the word you're looking for is...

....disappointed.

[leftstreet]

78. Give him credit for what?

[sibelian]

82. Not being Bush, I think.

Certainly scores points in that area.

[treestar]

188. I agree. I'm familiar with right wing hatred of Obama

And it feels awfully familiar.

[ileus]

29. Yes everyone knows disagreement with policy = Racism

[DeSwiss]

30. ''Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.''

I suppose being upset about the murdering of innocent women, children and babies is irrational?

I suppose I should just STFU about the re-writing of the Constitution as it applies to due process? So that he may murder those ''bad'' Americans without the encumbrances of those other silly branches of government getting in the way and gumming up the works?

I suppose I should just forget about a promise to close the illegal and certainly immoral Guantanamo Kidnapping Facility and then whimpering about how weak and without powers he is because that bad 'ol Congress won't let him be a good guy?

I suppose I should ignore the fact that he promised not to devote his administration to the arresting of sick cancer patients, but did the shit anyways -- and worse -- intimidated local and state governments into repealing their loosened cannabis laws.

- I... oh just fucking forget it.

[MNBrewer]

34. The Constitution was written by racists, you know!

[DeSwiss]

35. I suppose the fact that my 3/5 of a person great-grandfather and great grandmother were slaves.....

...I ought to know if I didn't.

[MNBrewer]

42. Being counted as 3/5s wasn't even the worst thing the Constitution inflicted on your ancestors

who were enslaved, and to the extent I can, I apologize for that grave injustice done to them.

I have no idea how many of my ancestors were here during the time of slavery. Some came during, some came after, but I do know that one of my great-great-great grandfathers was a Union solder and died in Kentucky fighting for the Union cause.

[DeSwiss]

52. First, I forgave myself. Then I forgave everyone else, long ago.

- Now I just try to speak the truth as I see it. I try to hone-in on what I think is important to our lives and to our freedoms. Without which nothing else matters. That forgiveness applies to Obama as well. Because I'm not his judge.

But I won't stop talking about what I see. No matter who it upsets.

[center]






[/center]

Namaste!

[treestar]

182. Actually, it was

As far as that day and age went. Most of them probably were pretty sure blacks should not have the right to vote and run for office.

[Vanje]

214. We're a better country than we were back then!

We can be even better, yet.

[OrwellwasRight]

233. Yes, don't you know if you complain about any of these things you are a racist?

'Cause apparently the only way to prove your non-racist bona fides around DU is to LOVE and PRAISE everything Obama does. Let's give it a try, shall we?

Dick: "Hey, Bill, did you know Obama proposed to cut your Social Security benefits by using chained CPI?"

Bill: "Why yes I did Dick. And did you know if he accomplishes it, he will be the first Democratic president in history to cut Social Security? Doesn't that make him a terrific President Dick?"

Dick: "Gee, that's swell Bill. That's really swell. I love getting my retirement security reduced, Bill. Anyone who would dare to bring that up in a negative way must surely be a racist."

Bill: "They surely must be, Dick, they surely must be."

[DeSwiss]

243. ''Argumentum magnifica....''

''Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

'Except-' began Winston doubtfully, and he stopped.

It had been on the tip of his tongue to say 'Except the proles,' but he checked himself, not feeling fully certain that this remark was not in some way unorthodox. Syme, however, had divined what he was about to say. 'The proles are not human beings,' he said carelessly. 'By 2050 earlier, probably -- all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron -- they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.''

~George Orwell, 1984

- Once you get away with redefining the concept of freedom, the rest is a piece of cake......

[MNBrewer]

32. I didn't read your whole post, but your characterization of criticism as

"Irrational attacks toward our President" is overly broad. Are some of the true "attacks" based in racism? Sure! I can agree with that. Is all criticism an "attack". Nope.

While I really was excited by the rhetoric and promise of candidate Obama, one of the reasons I enthusiastically voted for candidate Obama and to re-elect President Obama is that I thought it was time to end the unbroken line of white control of the presidency.

So now that I criticize him, it must be that I'm a racist, right? It couldn't have anything to do with the dissonance between candidate Barack Obama and President Barack Obama.

I know, I know. Candidate Obama never promised magical unicorn-ponies that fart glitter and shit gold and piss a fine Belgian Saison...

[stupidicus]

33. Gee, if it's irrational to attack chained cpi, potential approval of the keystone pipeline, etc, etc

or in the more recent case, his stewardship over the spy machine, then color me irrational and a racist.

Apparently he was irrational when he asked us to hold his feet to the fire, because he should have known that we'd be charged with being racist for following his suggestion in either a direct or in an insinuated manner.

What do you suggest -- that we overlook what we see as faults (where lives or the quality of them are at stake) because he's done some good?

Gee, is that what you suggest for say, parenting as well? "Forget about carelessly stomping my petunias into the dirt Tommy, because you picked your room up today!"....

[ProSense]

36. 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.

[cali]

39. so Pro, are you saying that a lot of the

criticism by DUers is based on racism?

Just answer yes or no.

[ProSense]

48. Wait,

"so Pro, are you saying that a lot of the criticism by DUers is based on racism Just answer yes or no."

...where did you get that from my statement, and why exactly do you believe you need to invent a scenario and challenge me to respond?

I made a general statement based on my overall observation. I have no idea what people's individual motives are. This is a big board that occasionally attracts trolls. So if you're looking for absolution, please look elsewhere.

I made my point.

[cali]

84. absolution? huh? from the likes of YOU?

don't hold your breath.

where did I get it from? Your post which presumably was in response to the OP which was directed at DUers.

You seem to be constitutionally incapable of giving a direct, honest response to any question.

[ucrdem]

109. You should be so lucky. nt

[sibelian]

47. Well, Prosense, I guess I think whatever you say I think.

Thanks for the heads up. Next time I post a criticism of someone I'll check with you to see whether or not their skin colour excludes me from the right to do so.

[ProSense]

49. Consider being courteous and not hijacking this thread with your nonsense. n/t

[cali]

85. lol.

[ProSense]

102. .

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

[Number23]

145. Sweet Baby Jesus.

[Bobbie Jo]

156. ouch

We need 2 liters of INSIGHT here......STAT!

[ucrdem]

106. cali would you please log off for an hour?

a

You've said you're piece and whether you realize it or not this is disgraceful.

[cali]

153. no

and I find your posts repugnant, but I wouldn't call for you to log off as it's none of my business.

[sibelian]

95. Do you know what?

You make no sense.

[ucrdem]

101. Do you know what else?

She does.

[sibelian]

117. Nah, she's an issue bunny.

She's got one solution and she applies it to everything.

It's comforting to think that the world's ills can be laid at the feet of a singular, monolithic, evil social structure that can be knocked over and WAAAA everything will be okay. It doesn't work like that.

[ucrdem]

126. I can't believe what I'm reading.

What the heck happened to this place?

[JI7]

135. this is how bad it is, it's not enough to criticize Obama , they go after anyone who likes him

in such a personal way as they do with Prosense.

[Number23]

144. Prosense could enter a thread and say "I agree." That's it. And have 12

posts from slobbering maniacs trying to shut her up.

And God forbid she posts a link to any damn thing. Any of the other 300 people who post on this web site does it, it's "evidence." Prosense does it and it's "blue links of spin" as if she has any control over what color the links are. You would think people would be embarrassed to type anything so needlessly stupid.

Disagree with her or not, love her or not, but the constant attacking from people who can't argue her facts need to stop.

[JW2020]

271. Prosense is the same poster that links

to her own links. "I'm right because I say I'm right!" does not win an argument. It's a temper tantrum.

[Number23]

291. She links to her own threads because they often have links to things like, you know ARTICLES

but if you read her links instead of simply whining about them, you'd probably already know that.

[cali]

155. you'd actually need to have been around a little longer

to understand the rhythms of the place.

[G_j]

53. sputter

choke , cough... there you go again..

[ucrdem]

99. Nicely articulated. nt

[Logical]

57. Your problem is that you do not think someone can be extremely disappointed in Obama....

and not be "racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy". What a horrible thing to say about people who do not worship Obama like you do.

I expected more. I expected him to call out congress when they needed called out. I had HUGE expectations after the campaign he ran in 2008. He was going to change Washington.

I was a maxed out donor in 2008 and 2012. I knocked on doors in 2008 and 2012. Made phone calls in 2008.

In 2008 it was because I thought he would come to Washington and kick ass and take names. Call out the GOP for what they were wrong and tell the public how they wanted to destroy this country.

In 2012 it was because I did not want Romney to win. Obama was better than any GOP idiot. But that was all.

His attempt to get along with the GOP lasted too long and he ended up looking gullible. We all knew it was not working and it took him a long time to realize it.

Taxing the rich, reducing the Patriot act, etc.

I didn't expect him to win with the GOP congress, but I expected him to call them out and he did not.

I think the blind supporters, those who refuse to criticize him and 100% always defend him are as bad as the Bush supporters were defending everything he did. I consider you in this group.

So I understand your posts now. Everyone who disagrees with Obama is "racism, bigotry, hate, agendas, envy and jealousy" motivated. Wow, what a wonderful position to take.

[ProSense]

62. Is it because I'm black?

What the fuck? Did my comment in this thread send out a signal to swarm?

Some of you have issues. Seriously.

[Logical]

68. I swear you have an issue where you are so attached or fascinated with Obama that any complaint...

about him makes you think you have to 100% defend him. 500 posts if needed. No one does that.

Obama is NOT perfect. I doubt you could type those words and post them.

I will take 50 people complaining about Obama while still voting democratic over one 100% blinded supporter who see nothing wrong with him.

"What the fuck? Did my comment in this thread send out a signal to swarm?". That statement makes you come across as a paranoid nut!

[ProSense]

70. Well,

I swear you have an issue where you are so attached or fascinated with Obama that any complaint...

about him makes you think you have to 100% defend him. 500 posts if needed. No one does that.

Obama is NOT perfect. I doubt you could type those words and post them.

I will take 50 people complaining about Obama while still voting democratic over one 100% blinded supporter who see nothing wrong with him.

"What the fuck? Did my comment in this thread send out a signal to swarm?". That statement makes you come across as a paranoid nut!

...at least I'm not stalking people and sending them weird PMs. I mean, you have some serious issues, and that last point is likely you projecting.

[Logical]

93. Well Miss paranoid.......

Here are the contents of the only four PMs I have ever sent you. I will let people decide if they are weird.

PM # 1
Link for you......
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10022592785
Curious of your opinion!

PM # 2
Who do you work for? Whitehouse? Seriously, I won't tell! I promise!

PM#3
I doubt you and I agree on much about Obama....
but I bet we are pretty close on how this country should look!
Merry Xmas, and I look forward to arguing more in 2012!!

PM#4
Unless it is none of my business......
And if it is I will not be offended.
What is your story?
Old? Young? Middle?
East Coast? Mid West? West Coast?
Job?
Work for Obama campaign? Or just a interested Dem?
I am a 50 year old guy from Kansas City Area. IT Programmer. Donating $50 a month to Obama but about 50% as committed as I was in 2008. I think he oversold himself in 2008. And I believed 100% of it.
You are one of the most discussed DU members for sure.
And sending you a heart. Might not agree with you all them time but respect your dedication!

----------------------------------------------------------

LOL, those are SO weird. See what I mean about Paranoid??

Here is a thread where I asked you to STOP stalking me....FOR THE 10TH TIME IN THE THREAD!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2833842
You finally stopped. But it took 10 times.

So nice try again!

[ucrdem]

98. Just stop. This is bad form and beneath DU.

[Logical]

103. What are you talking about? I defended her BS. If you want to defend her then do it. Otherwise....

let me know what I said wrong.

[OrwellwasRight]

240. What's beneath DU is letting OPs like this one --

calling other DUers racist because they dare to be critical of the President -- stand.

That's what is beneath DU.

[ProSense]

100. "Here are the contents of the only four PMs I have ever sent you."

Thanks for posting those.

Yikes!

[Logical]

105. Yes, Yikes when I have to tell you 10 times to quit stalking me. n-t

[ProSense]

111. LOL!

You've got issues.

[Kolesar]

150. Way weird

Is this malaise running through your mind when you go to sleep at night? You are an obsessive.

[JI7]

154. those pms make you look bad

[treestar]

195. Prosense has never attacked people for the criticism

Yet has had tons directed at her for her support.

What is wrong with supporting a politician? It seems like you think that is wrong in itself. When you are behind a politician, you will generally respond to attacks with defense. That's how it works.

Yet you seem to think no one on DU has the right to support a Democratic President.

99% of the criticism is ridiculous, too. Just because it's criticism doesn't mean it is rational or well considered. The knee jerk response to Eddie's leaking is a case in point. People were ready to jump on that, not think about it first and whether criticism was warranted or had any backing to it. The 1000s of posts with thousands of exaggerations don't lend credence to the always-critical stance.

[Fearless]

91. You have got to be kidding me!

As it pertains to supporting or criticizing the president, the color of your skin is utterly irrelevant. You have nothing to do with it AT ALL. Nothing about this issue has anything to do with you personally. You are making it personal to yourself. The issue is with you to yourself. You are seeing something that isn't there. This is DU not a KKK discussion board.

[ProSense]

94. "You have nothing to do with it AT ALL."

Tell that to the swarm.

[Fearless]

104. I'll rephrase...

No petty internet squabbles have ANYTHING to do with the issue at hand. And you've done your share of stirring the pot just the same as anyone else in this "swarm". It's just a distraction from the real issues. It is the Fox News of discussion board subthreads.

[ProSense]

115. Oh please,

"No petty internet squabbles have ANYTHING to do with the issue at hand. And you've done your share of stirring the pot just the same as anyone else in this "swarm". It's just a distraction from the real issues. It is the Fox News of discussion board subthreads."

...when people respond to comments and threads with personal comments, that's their problem. If you weren't disingenuous you wouldn't have jumped into this subthread to lecture me for responding to a bunch of people posting personal comments.

[Fearless]

139. I responded to your statement that this is racism

I was on topic. I did not attack you. It's not racism to criticize the president. That's the bottom line.

[ucrdem]

97. Will you just stop.

Please show some sensitivity to other members okay?

[Fearless]

107. I haven't said anything insensitive.

It's very simple. None of the BS that goes on in these "discussions" has anything to do with the real issue at hand. It's all petty squabbling.

[ucrdem]

113. If that's what you think then this thread is for you

and I mean that in the kindest possible way.

[Fearless]

134. Saying something that isn't racism isn't racism

Isn't insensitive.

It's the truth.

The president is wrong.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

That's life.

[ucrdem]

142. And I would say it is.

Anyway you've said your piece, no one has had any posts deleted, so please for the love of pete just quit while you're ahead.

[Fearless]

146. To be sure

I've stated my opinions. And I will continue to do so for many years on a great many topics on DU. That's what we're all here for after all.

[sibelian]

110. No. It's not because you're black.

It's because you don't listen to anybody.

[ucrdem]

112. Will you please just stop. nt

[ucrdem]

92. Thanks ProSense, once again you've hit the nail on the head

and put it much more politely than I every could. And if anyone can't see what's in front of their face they're blind.

[Logical]

120. Wow, I get it now. n-t

[ucrdem]

124. Good. Then you know it's time to leave this thread. nt

[Logical]

127. Funny you never told Prosense to "quit". n-t

[ucrdem]

129. ProSense never lost her marbles. nt

[Logical]

137. LOL.....you are just looking silly now.....

This sounds like losing her marbles to me....

Is it because I'm black?

What the fuck? Did my comment in this thread send out a signal to swarm?

Some of you have issues. Seriously.

[ucrdem]

143. Fine you made your point, now just skedaddle will ya? nt

[SlimJimmy]

160. To be honest, I didn't know Prosense was black until that post.

That doesn't change my perception of her steadfast support of President Obama, no matter what. I think it's a bit misdirected at times; almost to a fault.

[Logical]

166. No one on the DU, I hope, cares what color any of us are. Maybe I am naive. But I have never...

met a true racist liberal.

Prosense is a dedicated liberal I have no doubt. But your "to a fault" statement is right on.

[Safetykitten]

242. Racist Democrats...really? That's it? No snips?

[frylock]

41. it's called principle and it's called being consistent..

really, there is only ONE true litmus test; if you didn't support under bush, but support it under Obama, that's hypocrisy. if you didn't support it under bush, and you still don't support it under Obama, then you're principled. it really is that simple.

[Kolesar]

158. That does not cover the wide ranging attacks on the President by your party*

*the lugubrious chair occupants

[SlimJimmy]

161. +1 A cogent and succinct argument. Kudos.

[OrwellwasRight]

246. +1000

'Nuf said.

[Bobbie Jo]

45. Outstanding post, DI

Thank you.

[MrScorpio]

46. Thank you very much, Drunken Irishman

You've said it much better than I've ever could.

[HooptieWagon]

50. Did it not occur to you many DUers object to being spied upon?

Did it not occur to you many DUers object to secret "Free-trade" deals?
Did it not occur to you many DUers object to SS cuts, chained CPI, and other austerity measures?
Did it not occur to you many DUers object to DoJ resources being used to bust medical marijuana clinics instead of Wall St bankers?
Did it not occur to you many DUers find Obama's promise of "the most transparent administration ever" is a farce?
Did it not occur to you that mamy DUers are not comfortable with Obama appointing so many Republicans to positions in his administration?
Did it not occur to you many DUers object to privitizing govt functions, especially in areas like education?
Did it not occur to you that many DUers are still smarting from Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanual telling us we aren't important?

Probably 99.9+% of DUers voted for Obama, race was no obstacle. Every single one expected substantial change from Bush policies. When Obama not only doesn't change those policies, but doubles down on them, naturally criticism ensues. Race ain't got nothing to do with it, failure to deliver has everything to do with it.

[Skidmore]

269. CONGRESS needs to change the law or the courts need to rule that

it is unconstitutional. For pity sake, do you even understand that we have a legislative branch that has sat on its collective ass for the past five years and done nothing but name post offices and try to shoot down any attempts to do something? Did you see the Teabagger lovefest in front of the Capitol yesterday resplendent with those fine intellects of Bachmann, Gohmert, Rohrbacher, and Glenn Beck, newly annointed GOP leader?

Get to work on the legislature because the incessant caterwauling on here directed 100% at one person is getting old. In the meantime, your Congress continues to churn out garbage, unless you have no problem with that.

[HooptieWagon]

280. To be sure Congress needs to step up and be responsible for oversight.

But the bulk of the blame still goes to the person in charge who overreached legal authority. Blaming Congress is like blaming the police for the acts committed by a criminal.

[Bonobo]

51. A consistent moral compass. nt

[warrior1]

54. Well said DI

[Skidmore]

63. It's called

giving Congress a pass regardless of what they do or don't do. If half of the vitriol were directed toward Congress or, more constructively, getting new people in, the man would have some one to work with. It seems that people are content to let Teabagger heaven carry on. The Congress is never forced to feel the consequences of the tons of bad legislation it has foisted off on the people for the past decade.

[zeemike]

58. Well this "racist voted for Obama twice and in the primary

And if you want to know I became a "racist" the first tie with chained CPI as I saw that as a clear breaking of the trust I had in him to be for us....But the last straw was the spying....Not that Obama had anything to do with it but the fact that he came out in supported it and told us it was a good thing.

Sorry, I will not roll over and play dead while right wing policies are implemented right before our eyes just because we have a black president and I might be accused of being a racist.

And FYI I know what racism is....I was in Neshoba county Mississippi in 1965...and to call people here racist because of policies is sick IMO.

[Starry Messenger]

60. If you're only in your 20's then you don't remember

the fierce criticism that was lobbed at Clinton from the left. And he still gets criticism from the same groupings. Same as President Obama. Not as much of it was online back then, but I certainly remember it.

[LittleBlue]

61. Calling criticism of government policy "racism" is simpleminded

Such a crude argument isn't worthy of serious consideration. By the same reasoning, I could argue that progressives were "over-the-top" in their racist criticism of Bush.

It's a load of nonsense. I wouldn't advise you to say this in public, the argument will be ripped to shreds by anyone with a brain.

[Puzzledtraveller]

257. It was inferred that I was a racist for making a similar comment during the 2012 election

that labeling all opposition racist was lazy and dishonest and not constructive to our dialog among fellow Democrats but in the greater course of trying to appeal to other voters. Now, we can see what that attitude has done as it shows itself on DU and we are eating each other alive over it. I feel somewhat vindicated, though I take no pleasure in that.

[vi5]

65. What a load of BS

Who the hell are you or anyone else to decide what are "irrational" attacks (I should put "attacks" in quotes too because most of what sends the cheerleaders on here to the fainting couch with their hankies dabbed to their foreheads are not even close to "attacks" in even the most delicate sense of the word).

As someone else in this thread pointed out Clinton got just as much grief from the left and so did Carter. It wasn't "racism" then and it's not "racism" now. It's called having a consistent set of morals and beliefs and holding someone accountable for acts that go against those morals, regardless of what letter is after their name and regardless of what else they may have done which wasn't reprehensible.

[Iggo]

66. Fuckin do it!

Yeah!

[JoeyT]

69. If you want to know why moderates and uninformed don't take

you seriously when you call actual racists racist, I'd like you to know this is why.

Yell wolf often enough and loudly enough, and sooner or later everyone's going to stop looking for the wolf. Call everyone that disagrees with a president's policy racist, and sooner or later everyone's going to stop listening to you when you point at actual racists that don't disagree with him but hate him because he's not white.

Edited to add: I'm not white either, for what it's worth.

[Bobbie Jo]

71. Having read through the

predictable responses, it's clear many didn't even bother to read your post.

Same simplistic regurgitation.
Same dramatic offense.
Same holier than thou attitude.
Same closed mindedness.
Same divisive language.
Same shit different day.

No, DI....they didn't even bother to read it, much less make an effort to understand what you're trying to say.

Hope you stick around, your voice is sorely needed.

[Major Hogwash]

73. Wow, that is outstanding.

I knew you were smart before, but I didn't know you were a woman.
Life is too short to stay here arguing constantly on a daily basis.
We got what we wanted, we got President Obama re-elected last year.
That was very important.
But, we didn't get back control of the House.
That is the biggest problem we have now.
So, that's what we need to concentrate on for the next year and a half.

[annabanana]

76. Ah my dear DI

I have also seen some with nothing good to say about the man. I choose to believe, (and I think it's a rational supposition) that there are those who benefit from confusion and negativity on this site and around this President. I fully expect that there are those on payroll who's JOB it is to shit-stir.

Am I delighted with how this President has moved forward with his administration? No. I believe it was a mistake to insist on "looking forward" when the crimes of the previous admin. were fresh, and I think there are wounds that will not heal until those crimes are addressed.

But I do not ascribe evil intent to this man. The office of the President is only as powerful as TPTB allow, and they are much more supportive of that power when they have an eager corporate booster in office. I think Obama has been hamstrung by a spiteful and recalcitrant right wing whose influence FAR exceeds it's mandate with the American people.

I will continue to applaud him when he manages even incremental improvements. I will criticize when his efforts seem half-hearted, and I will work until my dying day towards the progressive ideals that I feel would best serve the greatest number of my fellow Citizens.

[JustAnotherGen]

133. +1

And their goal was to make him a one term President.

Now their goal is to make sure the business of the people does not get done.

That's the only thing I'm really angry about right now.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

77. A lot of people here didn't start paying attention to politics until Bush...

Many didn't even know their state capital had a miniature version of the house and senate.

Hell,...some didn't know about the house and senate in DC. The way the media acts is you vote for a guy and he has the power to do anything he wants for four years and if we like it we elect him again for another four.

[Vanje]

194. There was no DU before Bush.

Bush the son.

If there had been a DU through Clinton and Bush 1 admins, Be assured, there would have been loud constant criticism of their policies too.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

200. Some of us were actually into politics before this place existed.

[L0oniX]

79. YAwn

[Fearless]

81. DADT was not his success

He was ORDERED by the court system to deal with it. He was happy enough to leave it alone apparently. Please don't talk about things you clearly don't understand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/dadt-repeal-court-order-_n_891591.html

President Obama is not infallible. Being critical of his mistakes is NOT racism.

That's all.

[HooptieWagon]

86. OP is only defending O'Bama because he's Irish.

[madokie]

87. Its racism pure and simple

I've been pointing this out for a few years now.

[leftstreet]

89. How did Obama get elected?

[madokie]

119. Not all people are racist

the racist ones are the ones making all the noise.

[leftstreet]

125. Yeah, yeah, just the ones who criticize his policies n/t

[Logical]

122. So you think the DUers who complain about Obama are racists? n-t

[ucrdem]

128. Two days ago I would have disagreed. nt

[shanti]

131. That's some sick shit

Plain and simple. How dare you call people out of their name for having the temerity to criticize the presidency...

[Kolesar]

165. The dorks of DU were attacking Pelosi in the same manner before President Obama took office.

They're Republicans:
-A huge proportion of them cannot bring themselves to contribute to DU, and
-They frame their statements in libertarian terms like privacy or free enterprise
-incomplete sentences and use of all capital letters

[OrwellwasRight]

251. "Free enterprise"?

What are you even talking about? That's how the President frames HIS doubling down on the crappy Bush trade policies. He is negotiating THREE trade agreements RIGHT NOW. All modeled on NAFTA, and at least 2 of them sure to offshore more jobs while all of them will continue the spiral of increasing corporate power at the expense of working people, continuing the relentless downward spiral of wages and working conditions.

But, you know what? Let's pretend it's Obama's CRITICS who hide behind free market bullshit and aren't committed to progressivism.

And let's pretend I'm racist for attacking the President's economic policies.

Your broad brush insults are nauseating.

You should really think before you type.

[Kolesar]

267. Favorite group: Creative Speculation,

[OrwellwasRight]

270. WTF is that supposed to mean?

Do you even know anything about trade policy? Perhaps you need to get educated.

[DeSwiss]

250. Is that so?

I was black before
Obama was born. I'm
pretty sure I'm not
racist either. But
don't go by me.....

[Starry Messenger]

263. Very dashing portrait, DeSwiss!

[Marrah_G]

88. I disagree

And your thinly veiled accusation of racism towards other DUers makes you not worth wasting my internet space on.

[bluestate10]

90. With one sentence, you nailed the snake's skin to a wall

"So irrational, that it leaves a great deal of Obama supporters questioning the motivation behind it - especially when it comes from the same collection of posters who have slammed Obama at every turn without ever offering even a token praise when warranted. "

There are some on DU that are incessant Obama attackers and when they aren't attaching Obama, they are talking down other democratic office holders or threatening to hurt democrats in 2013. To that ilk, I give an eternal middle finger as my lips purse, F..them!

[JustAnotherGen]

96. This post is a work of art

That doesn't mean the left is racist for making very similar irrational arguments (Obama has been called fascist by both the left and the right) - but there has to be an explanation for that irrationality. What is it? To wonder if it is racism, when the attacks are so eerily similar to the racist attacks from the right, is not entirely unreasonable. I don't think it's true for a vast majority of DUers or liberals ... but there does appear to be a collection of people who, from day one decided they didn't like Obama and were going to express that dislike at every chance they got - without ever admitting when he did something right.

I tried to point this out last night. When you start sounding like Santorum and Perry you run the risk of well - sounding like Santorum and Perry.

[Skip Intro]

116. It is all the apologists have left, and it's popping up regularly now.

Criticize Obama or his admin, you must be racist.

Fail to praise Obama frequently, you must be racist.

That's the new/old/new tactic.

But, as evidenced by the replies to this thread, next to nobody is buying it.

I have renewed fondness for DU.

[BumRushDaShow]

121. An extraordinarily well thought-out post

Done without all the histrionics, rancor, and hyperbole that has drowned DU of late, with post after post of ad hominem personal attacks and name-calling. And this has eventually lead to folks fleeing leaving a broken jury system, where vicious personal attacks are left to stand. Sadly, there are a number of posters who apparently don't know, don't understand, or don't care how the 3 branches of government operate.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

123. It's a natural reaction against gov lying and spying

And complete trashing of our constitution, many are turned off by that kinda blatant lawlessness.

[ucrdem]

132. Welp, I think that cleared up any doubts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. In a democracy it is the reponsiibility of the people to hold its public servants accountable.

Even Democrats. Even presidents. Even Black Democratic presidents.

[LanternWaste]

141. Passionate disagreement and/or disillusionment with policy.

"So, if it's not racism, then what is the reasoning behind the often irrational attacks toward our President? "

Passionate disagreement and/or disillusionment with policy. "shrug: That's a paraphrase from my twelve year old niece sitting next to me.

Sometimes, we think ourselves far too clever to see the obvious answers... and asking a twelve year old may assist you as much as it does me.

Good luck in thinking!

[The Link]

147. The last thing to bring up is Obama on gay civil rights.

First - if you think that marriage is only between a man and a woman at any point, you are a homophobe. People can and do change, and I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on his evolution on the issue. But make no mistake, he has been lagging on his leadership on gay rights. Biden essentially forced him to support marriage rights. The man is no leader on the issue, and I question his sincerity at times as nothing more than going with the winds politically.

[Liberal Veteran]

170. I'm going to have to take issue with your comment.

Obama may not be perfect on gay rights, but he has done more for the gay community than all the other presidents COMBINED, including the great Clinton that gave us DOMA and DADT. And most people here, including those in the LGBT community consider Bill Clinton to be a really great president.

There seems to be an odd double standard.

Maybe it is hindsight? After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, the previous Democratic president looks great.

Maybe there is still some hurt feelings over Hillary Clinton not getting the nomination? Certainly there was enough internecine warfare to support that theory.

Maybe we just go so used to bitching about the presidency we got addicted to it? Lord knows that enough blame gets pushed onto the president when really it is the republicans in Congress stopping so much of our agenda, but it easier to pick one person and turn him into our "whipping person".

Maybe there is some racism (implicit or explicit)? I've been around a few too many democrats (including my own father before he died) that toss the n-word around like it was nothing at all. Let's not pretend there might not be some beam in our own eye that might need removing.

I could go on and on with this. Naivety? Foolishness? Impatient?

The funny thing is, I'm wondering how that will all play out in the future.

When our next Republican is elected, will Obama be placed on the somewhat undeserving pedestal that Bill Clinton is currently on?

I think we'll at least have our answer then about the racism question if nothing else.

But, at least we can all go back to being a united party again as we heap our scorn on the republican and yearn for the good old days of having a Democratic president.

It seems to be what we are best at.

[The Link]

173. He went where the money and the votes were. He didn't lead.

Biden did. Democrats in Congress did. He campaigned on homophobia and maintained the stance until he was forced to change by the times.

We will have to just disagree on it.

[Liberal Veteran]

180. Say what? He campaigned on homophobia?

That's a bizarre statement in and of itself.

What I want to know is why you seem so sure of your view on Obama and gay rights? He gets all the blame for what HASN'T yet happened to further equality, but none of the credit?

And, tell us, how do you feel about Hillary Clinton as a candidate? Did she also campaign on homophobia?

What are your feelings towards Bill Clinton? Do you think he was a homophobe as well?

Al Gore?

I'm not asking for your agreement or disagreement. But I'd like to know how consistent your views are with regards to the "superstars" of our party.

[The Link]

185. He used well known, distinguished homophobes to campaign for him.

In states where it would play well. He was adamant that his religion was the basis for his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Bill Clinton, when he did not support gay marriage, was a homophobe as well. Al Gore too.

Don't you think that someone who thinks marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman and should be denied to gays is a homophobe?

[Liberal Veteran]

196. And the other candidate I mentioned?

She came damn close to being our nominee and if anything, her position was even worse.

Believe what you will, but I'll put your Obama's accomplishments on gay rights against your beliefs any day of the week.

This almost visceral willingness to give Obama no credit for what he has actually done for us as a community strikes me as either being Veruca Salt or there is something else altogether ignoble at play in this dislike.

[The Link]

198. But he was a homophobe...until last year.

When the politics forced him to evolve.

[Liberal Veteran]

206. That's what I'd call a great example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

We'll just shit all over everything step forward we have made in the last 5 years and dismiss those accomplishments as "political expediency" rather than celebrate those accomplishments because the person who signed the paper wasn't morally pure enough on this issue?

And you wonder that anyone might look in askance at that stance?

[alp227]

151. DI, I was one of those young people who saw hope in Obama back in 2008.

I thought he'd be the one to undo the disastrous Bush regime policies. He didn't do enough. However, I reluctantly voted for him in 2012 (I wasn't 18 yet in 2008) in the first pres. election i voted in ever. I did NOT want to see a President Mitt Romney. Sadly the truth is that American politics = the lesser of 2 evils. Some Obama policies whether continuing NSA surveillance or dumbing down the STOCK Act or wanting chained CPI would be either same or worse under McCain or Romney administrations. It sucks, I know.

[BainsBane]

152. Welcome back, Drunken Irishman

I've glad to see you have returned.

[DirkGently]

159. Aliens?

If you're seriously suggesting racism is the only possible source of liberal criticism of, apparently, anything that has occurred in government since 2008, Ancient Aliens and / or Bigfoot are at least as rational a conclusion.

Is the ACLU racist? They seem troubled by domestic surveillance. The Electronic Frontier Foundation? Valerie Plame?

If these folks aren't racists, and yet still have concerns about the post-Obama world, what is it, if not Aliens?

[Scurrilous]

162. K & R

Thanks!

[Drunken Irishman]

169. My point is absolutely echoed in many replies to this post...

That's a shame.

I don't know if I was clear or if some of you didn't read what I wrote (of course, it was rather long, so, I guess I can understand not wanting to - but if you didn't read, why reply?). But if you had read, or if I had been clearer, you would've realized the point I was trying to make that criticism alone is not the problem. It's irrational criticism that I've seen thrown around DU since Obama took office.

It is absolutely true he has been called a homophobe, which is ironic coming from a bunch of people who get upset over potentially being labeled racist. He has been called a fascist. He has been called a warmonger. He has been called a killer. He has been called no different than George W. Bush. He's been called worse than Nixon. You're even starting to see people suggest he had Michael Hastings killed. Those are absolutely irrational attacks that I would fully expect from people like Glenn Beck and not expect from so-called liberals.

How can anyone look at those types of attacks as anything but irrational? And what drives that irrationality? If it's not racism ... is it absolute paranoia? We say racism drives the loons on the right and yet many of you parrot the same attacks they've been using since day one on Obama. Hell, I remember during the primary some members, members who still post today, questioning Obama's place of birth and his sexuality - even going as far as to push stories about him and some coke fiend having sexual relations in the back of a limo.

That is shit. It's total and utter shit. It's shit when the right says it and it's shit when the left says it. Just because you feel you're justified to criticize Obama does not mean all criticism is justified and there has been a group of posters on DU that, from the start, have posted nothing but hit piece after hit piece on the President. It's not about showing concern over the NSA scandal or the AP scandal. It's not about hitting his Syrian policy. It's deeper than that - it's about accusing him of things that are patently false. It's about character defamation that I would expect from the CHUDS at Free Republic, but not those here. The stuff I often see posted on DU goes beyond just criticizing and being disappointed - it goes to the heart of hatred. There are a select few members, albeit not a majority, who loath President Obama just as much as they loathed George Bush. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they loathed Obama more than Bush. They have attacked from the start and not once offered a word of encouragement when he does something worthy of being applauded.

You see it even in this thread. A poster already said Obama deserves zero credit for Don't Ask Don't Tell and then turned around and called him a homophobe. How is that rational? How can anyone who is rational look at those lines of attacks and think there isn't some more sinister intent behind it? Is it racism? I don't know. I don't know that person ... but it's something. There are many on the left who look at Obama as someone almost as bad as Hitler. Just DU search "fascism" and "obama" and look at how many DUers hint, or outright suggest, Obama is a fascist.

I don't think anyone on DU knows what it's like living under a fascist dictator but it ain't like the U.S. currently.

It's that type of hyperbole that drives many Obama supporters to question the merits behind these attacks. It's not that someone is upset over the spying program. It's that some will then turn around and suggest Obama is just like Bush across the board and then push conspiracy theories that he'll kill Snowden and that he potentially had Hastings killed.

Those attacks are something I'd expect to read on Alex Jones' website. Not DU. But why should I expect any differently? Some of you have built Obama into this monster who'll kill and corrupt his way to the top. And if you call those attacks irrational, and want to know what exactly is behind those attacks, you're dismissed as an apologist. Funny, huh?

The Obama many on DU have created in their head is the worst, most corrupt and evil president on the planet and it's interesting when you consider he also happens to be the first black president. Maybe it's not linked, but again, there has to be some reasoning behind these outlandish and ridiculous claims. But don't dare question these people or you're playing the race card! heh, where have I heard that one before? Oh right ... every racist Republican who doesn't want to answer for their racist bullshit.

[Liberal Veteran]

174. Agreed. It does seem that some folks pounce on any and everything to tear down Obama.

It is one of the reasons I feel like a stranger in the LGBT community of which I am member. I'm almost 50 years old now and THIS president has done more for gay rights than all the other sitting presidents combined.

Yet, he seems almost reviled by the LGBT community for not be "gay-friendly" enough, while Bill Clinton is welcomed with open arms.

I feel like I am living in crazy world sometimes at how far people will reach to criticize Obama.

[redqueen]

225. Those who engage in irrational attacks know damned well you weren't talking about criticism alone.

This 'Who, me?! I just disagree with him! Surely we can't all be expected to agree on everything and talk about how cute the dog is and how pretty Michelle's dresses are! Ha ha ha!' bullshit is a pathetic, weak-ass act and it fools no one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

230. Second exception of the day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023017085

Ain't re typing all that

[OrwellwasRight]

254. Who are you to determine which criticisms are "irrational" and which are not?

Seriously. That's code for, "if I don't like your opinions, I'll label you irrational and call you a racist." Oh wait, even better, from your last paragraph "a racist Republican." Screw that.

This entire thread is offensive and insulting. Worse than that, it has no basis in fact. One might call it "irrational."

[truebluegreen]

171. Simple-minded B.S.

"often irrational attacks"? On DU it's rational criticism and deep disappointment.

If it were Racism! we wouldn't have voted for him in the first place.

[Douglas Carpenter]

172. Well for one thing FAKING accusations of racism are not going to do any good, NOBODY believes that -

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

NOBODY!! Not when it comes to a progressive group of people who we all know would react just the same over almost any mainstream Democratic Party leader who managed to make it to the White House at the end of an utterly reactionary period coupled with an economic meltdown and elected with a massive overwhelming mandate for major change. .

Perhaps some people have unrealistic expectations and had actually imagined that an Obama presidency would mean the end of Wall Street dominance over our political and economic system. Perhaps some people actually imagined that that the lobbyist of corporate power would be tossed out the door and ordinary working people would now be taking charge and running the ship of state. No doubt some people believed that the days when insurance companies ran the health care system were coming to an end and we would now have a healthcare system driven not by profiteering - but by satisfying the needs of people and building a society like every other advanced democracy where sickness would never again mean financial ruin. . No doubt some imagined that we be launching a new war on poverty with sweeping programs to stop the slide into an endlessly increasing gap between the haves and have-nots. No doubt some imagined the White House would aggressively be pushing a program of reindustrializing America - attempting to restore our country to the days when good paying unionized industrial jobs were abundant. Clearly some thought that in total reversal of the Bush era neoconservative foreign policy - America would now turn completely from this unsustainable global military empire that has for so long dominated our the policy thinking of both parities as our resources seem to disappear into this endless pit. For sure some naively imagined that the Obama presidency would mean a fundamental change on how the United States deals with issues of lasting peace and stability in the Middle East.

I never had such allusions so I am not so disappointed. And though I can understand how it happened. Though I do grasp the pressure any President would be under to increase rather than decrease the intelligence systems, security networks and surveillance capabilities. I can imagine that the President might have been concerned about how this could get out of hand - in an atmosphere where he is constantly dogged by accusations of being soft on terrorism - he is under constant pressure to prove that he even more aggressive than his predecessors in minimizing the risk of terror - I was still a little surprised - that he allowed to be put in place a network much more expansive than we previously had even under the Bush Administration - a network that he may never abuse himself - but offers to any future head of government the tools for totalitarianism. I thought a Constitutional scholar with a progressive academic background would have not allowed such a thing to be developed under his watch to the extent that it was with such chillingly dangerous potential.

[Kolesar]

179. You foils are like Republicans everywhere: experts on Benghazi, birth certificates, Florida recount

Only on DU you launch these pathetic threads about Snowden, chained CPI, climate change, ad nauseum. I cannot imagine what pathology keeps you on this forum. You don't get shaken off by displaying outright nuttery, so you get to keep your shtick going year by year. I don't see how you enjoy it. It must stimulate you somehow. Pathology

[treestar]

184. Even after DADT passed, they started saying he won't sign it!

Up to the bitter end, hell after he'd signed it some had nothing good to say.

Hi Drunken!

[markiv]

189. 'I could go on' NO SHIT! 3,468 words in 35 paragraphs?!?!?

I started reading this, my eyes glazed over, and I scrolled down to see how long it was

Ever considered being just a tad bit more concise?

I nominate this thread for lengthiest diatribe

[markiv]

210. for comparison, the US Constitution is 4,501 words

in it's original form

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

you wrote 'anyone who questions Obama, is a racist', and you took 77 percent of the length of a document to found an entire nation to do it!

ARE YOU BEING PAID BY THE WORD?!?!?!

[Union Scribe]

190. Using a lot of words to make a dumb argument

doesn't make it less dumb. The entire basis of your post is that criticism is irrational, therefore must flow from some evil like racism. What none of you ever seem to even consider for a moment is that just maybe criticism of this administration is NOT irrational. Maybe it's instead of the bizarrely personal and angry defenses of bad policies that are irrational, especially when they always boil down to assuming the worst motives of people.

[Drunken Irishman]

199. Wrong...

Dumb, irrational criticism is wrong. Saying Obama maybe had Michael Hastings knocked off is irrational. Unless you think that is rational criticism? I doubt it. But that doesn't change the fact there is a thread right now on DU with a lot of people 'hmmming' over the possibility. But let me guess, you'll come defend that too, right?

Saying you disagree with Obama over the NSA program is entirely different than saying he's a fascist or a murderer. If you can't see the differences, then maybe you should check your own motives.

[Union Scribe]

204. Oh please

People are attacked as "haters" over simple and perfectly sound criticisms. It's disingenuous to pretend that all this whining about poor Obama getting beaten up at DU is because of a very few posters that make a claim like about Michael Hastings (I've not seen that claim here, btw).

The current pout-fest going on is because of the amount of criticism. They aren't running around going "well you have a point but you've taken it too far!" Instead they say the current NSA problem isn't really news and deny there's anything legitimate to discuss at all. And no, not all approach it like that but the percentage of Obama's ardent supporters doing so well exceeds the percentage of his critics who think he's working his way through a hit list or anything so specious.

[Drunken Irishman]

211. Just admit it, much of the criticism on DU is irrational...

You pretending that it isn't doesn't change the fact that, over the last four years, Obama has been called some awful things by a great deal of respected DUers. It wasn't that many summers ago the word du jour was calling Obama a corporatist. Of course, that was mild compared to what's been spewed lately - namely the crap about him being a fascist.

It's the shit Glenn Beck peddles and DU is sloppin' it up.

As for you not seeing the posts about Michael Hastings, I think that explains the reality here. You've buried your head so deep into the sand that you're not seeing the irrational criticism and outright hatred toward Obama.

But here, let me pull it out for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023051146

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023050411

[Union Scribe]

215. "corporatist" is not irrational.

Irrational doesn't mean "something you don't like." And that's half of why your argument has fallen flat on its face. The other half is that based on the second half of your post you obviously belong in that group of posters who fall back on the idiotic notion that criticism equals hate.

[Drunken Irishman]

216. Yeah, it kinda is.

It's an implication of a fascist state. Fascism is corporatism and when you call Obama a corporatist, you're essentially saying he's a fascist in a more watered down way since corporatists advance a type of fascism. Look up corporatism and see who was behind it. Hint: He ruled Italy during the 20s, 30s and 40s.

That type of heated rhetoric does not bring anything decent to the table. It's no less offensive than calling Obama a socialist or a fascist or a communist. It's just words that don't fully articulate any point. People use it as an attack without any rational definition of what they're talking about.

But that's just one example of many. Like I said, posters have now moved on to outright calling him a fascist. They're hinting maybe he does away with his enemies and potentially might take out Snowden because, in their view, Obama is a bloodlusting psychopath. But when you call him a corporatist, imply he might be fascist, and truly believe he's a murderer, I guess I can see why those irrational attacks seem rational. I'm sure to the people who have convinced themselves that Obama was born in Kenya that to them, their view is most certainly rational. It isn't. Obama is not some supervillain the right, and some on the left, have turned him into.

[Union Scribe]

217. "socialist" wouldn't be offensive either

Anyway, corporatism is not the same as fascism though they are related. In any sense what people mean when they say Obama is a corporatist they are really talking about corporatocracy rather than old-style corporatism.

[Drunken Irishman]

219. Instead of using throw away words, why not substance?

Saying you think Obama favors corporations a great deal of the time is not an irrational argument. It might not be something I agree with, but it's presented in a way where you can have a rational debate. But stating he's a corporatist is as irrational as calling him a Marxist because the intent isn't to debate, it's to flame. That's the difference. Saying you're displeased with Obama's policies is one thing. Saying he's a homophobe or a corporatist or a fascist doesn't help advance any point and it tells me you're not a rational person and there is no debate to be had. I wouldn't debate with Glenn Beck because I don't think he's a rational person. I've come to that conclusion not because I disagree with him (hell, he's called Obama a corporatist too) but because he doesn't engage in any debate. It's always venom with him. It's always tearing him down and never admitting when he's done something good. It's using coded words that elicit anger and hatred - but don't really say anything.

That's what DU has become as of late. Just throwing out words that have little substance and are only used to attack - not show displeasure or disappointment.

Hinting that Obama might possibly have killed Michael Hastings is in no way rational. And unfortunately, I've already seen it pop up here and on twitter and I'm sure it'll become a common talking point at both Alex Jones' website and some other liberal websites. You've already got Cenk Uygur, who is a very popular media personality here, hinting that his death doesn't pass the smell test. That type of rhetoric is toxic and doesn't do anyone any good because it just fuels this image that Obama is a killer. Hell, I've heard people say he droned Hastings. Irrational.

What drives this irrationality? I'll give you that it might not be racism but the rhetoric used against Obama, even if it comes from the left, can at times rival that of the rhetoric used from the right ... and I know that is fueled by racism. So, if it's not racism, why the constant hatred of Obama? There is disappointment and then there is hatred. You can tell the difference. Those who hate Obama have no problem using lethal language to get their point across - just like the Glenn Becks of the world.

[Union Scribe]

220. To end this on a positive note I agree with you that

"I disagree with policy x because of reason y" is much better than "Obama is a whatever." I propose that some of those "whatevers" come from a place of profound frustration rather than personal hate, but if people--on any which side--avoided those labels in re Obama or his good-faith critics it would go a long way to ease the crazy amount of tension around here.

[OrwellwasRight]

255. Well said.

[Prism]

191. You're really going to sit there and take shots at the LGBT community.

K, chief.

[Liberal Veteran]

222. Being gay myself, I'm perplexed by the disdain shown the president...

...by my own community. How is it that Obama has done more for gay rights than any president and is looked at as a scumbag bigot by our community?

Maybe I am just not gay enough to get the contempt.

[Prism]

223. I can speak only for myself.

I do not disdain the President. In fact, I wrote an OP last year about why he deserved the LGBT community's vigorous support during the election.

However, there are those in our community who are suffering injustice that the President himself could alleviate - but he chooses not to. Who am I to tell them how to feel?

I also think many LGBTers were soured by Obama partisans who were brutal and cruel during the homophobic incidents of the '08 campaign and the defense of DOMA fiascos during 2009 and 2010. While the LGBT community was fighting and pushing the President, his partisans were doing everything they could to put a boot in our faces.

Including a lot of names I see in this thread.

And after acting as partisan human shields and doing fuck all to help us influence the President, they tried to claim all the credit for our victories.

I totally understand how many in our community are sour, if not on the man, then on the image held of him by some if his most unempathetic and merciless partisans.

There's a saying. "Dear Jesus, save me from your followers." When it comes to how Obama partisans have treated LGBTers, that issue is lurking in spades.

[Liberal Veteran]

241. Your reply is eloquent and well-stated, but I can't share in the being sour on him.

Some of this animosity started right out of the gate with a particular cleric and it seemed to me nothing Obama ever did or does will ever be good enough for some to say "Hey, maybe he isn't the enemy I think he is."

A portion of that opinion that has solidified may be misdirected onto Obama more by the people who said essentially, "get the fuck over yourselves" when we should have been coming together as a community of democrats (gay and straight alike).

And while it may sound like an excuse, but given the opposition Obama has faced at getting even routine things done (like the debt ceiling), political calculus says he has done a remarkable job for the LGBT community and probably could do a hell of lot more if every single issue (and they are copious in quantity and quality) wasn't an uphill battle.

[Bluenorthwest]

275. Well said

And after acting as partisan human shields and doing fuck all to help us influence the President, they tried to claim all the credit for our victories.

[Safetykitten]

239. Freaking sickest little tirade in a long time.

[morningfog]

197. It is a centrist who embraced or acquiesced to too

many bush policies. It is a president who has never been good at controlling the message or the frame.

He's not all bad. He's done a lot of good. And when he does, I give him credit. When I think he is wrong, I certainly say so. He doesn't get a pass because he's a dem.

[phleshdef]

207. This OP had me practically cheering from my desk.

That's all I gotta say, no need to add anything really, you said it all.

[Corruption Inc]

208. It's about issues such as a horrible surveillance policy

Plus: for-profit health care, endless wars, oil pipelines, social security cuts, illegal banks and all their cronies getting government appointments, torture camps, whistle blower retaliation, drone attacks, appointing republicans to government positions, arming Syrians, etc...

If you were even slightly aware of any of those issues you'd be horrified as an American and extremely angry about them as a democratic voter. You seem blind to them all for whatever reasons.

Bye.

[boilerbabe]

213. oh for fuck sake can't you see it's not racism it"s RIGhT WING BULLSHIT he's promulgating!

Are you seriously that fucking DIM ?Obama is nothing but BUsh with a fanclub! I seriously cannot fathom what is WRONG with you people. HE ATTACKS WHISTLEBLOWERS. He is a fucking MESS.

[dsc]

218. Your discussion on DADT is dishonest on several levels

First, DADT was indeed repealed by law, but the replacement regulation letting LGBT serve openly is not a law and could have been repealed by the next administration had it chosen to do so, and in point of fact, could be repealed by the 2017 administration if it so chooses. Second, no one said he could undo DADT by an executive order, what was said, often, was that he could use stop loss to do so. No one argued it would be permanent, nor did anyone argue it would replace a law that would repeal. In point of fact once the wars ended so would stop loss which we acknowledged. Third, many did credit Obama, but since we also credited others were were taken to task and called racists. Fourth, DADT would not have been repealed but for the pressure gays put on Obama to speed up the time table. His time table was to wait until 2011, which would never have worked. The only thing that changed that time table was the pressure of gay backers of Obama who turned off the financial spigot.

[Prism]

224. +1 Lord, the revision around here

And in a thread questioning whether or not bigotry exists among some Democrats, we're getting an earful of this!

Did self-awareness totally flake away from human DNA?

[Safetykitten]

245. Sad little show going on in this thread. Quite amazing that the gays get the first strike...

from this guy writing this pile of horseshit.

[Prism]

248. Given personal poster histories

This is my surprised face.

[Liberal Veteran]

249. On the other hand...let's recall the 90's backlash.

There was a considerable amount of momentum squandered by the timing of the original fiasco that brought us DADT. It also fed a few state laws and amendments that were not helpful to our community. Obama chose healthcare right out of the gate. Clinton went the other direction. Which politician was more successful in that regard?

We took some major steps backwards in the LGBT community because President Clinton misjudged the political climate. Now, we have someone doing it a measured, but steady pace and we are moving forward again.

That seems to me to be good leadership.

[dsc]

258. oh please

I am so sick of hearing this kind of crap. Clinton didn't open the gates with trying to get gays in the military. But the notion that the difference in success has nothing at all to do with the fact that in 1993, a majority of society didn't want gays to serve openly when in 2009, an overwhelming majority did, which pretty much was entirely due to gays btw, is just plain insulting. Also, gays in the military didn't lead to those state laws that is just plain crap.

[Liberal Veteran]

262. I understand your argument, but I don't agree with it.

How many times we gripe and complain that we lost this or that house seat or senate seat or governorship because the republicans drove their base to the polls with gay marriage bans on the ballot? I'm not saying it was our fault as a community. The blame lies squarely on the republican strategists who used gay rights as a wedge issue. That's history. We lived through it.

And yet, Bill Clinton gets a pass for DOMA and DADT while Obama is persona non grata. That's just bizarre.

Yes, the climate is different. Yes, our community changed some of it's tactics. But to piss on the strides we made and not praise Obama for doing the right thing (even if you think it was it so easy) is counterproductive. To date, President Obama has been the best president on gay rights. Given the past history, you may say that isn't a major accomplishment. I say every step forward is a cause for celebration.

Truman may have integrated the military, but their was (and still is) a long way to go with regards to racism. That doesn't lessen the accomplishment.

[dsc]

274. I don't know if you were alive or an adult when Clinton was President

but if you were and you wrote such drivel as Clinton gets a free pass, then you are just plain dishonest. Gays did to Clinton exactly and precisely what they did and are doing to Obama. Clinton got major protests over DADT at every single fundraiser he did for much of 1993. He also got a smaller percentage of gay votes in 96 than he did in 92. It is just plain, flat out, gold carat, dishonest to state that Clinton gets some sort of free pass. You are also wrong in regards to Obama. Gays voted as strongly for Obama in 12 as they did in 08. The drop off among gays in 10 was actually less than that of union households and the youth vote. Given that the out gay vote skews young, that means we likely would have had no drop off at all if there hadn't been among the youth. Yes, he has been and continues to be protested by gays over policy, just like Clinton. And just like Clinton on some issue he deserves that protest. No protest, no end to DADT, since Obama publicly stated over and over and over again, that his time table for repealing DADT was 2011 by which time we had a GOP House. ENDA is a non starter with a GOP House so yes, Obama needs to do the executive order. Truman's order could have been undone, it wasn't. Most of the state level executive orders on employment haven't been overturned by GOP governors (the only exception I can think of is VA and the AG who spearheaded that is considered extreme). We aren't racist to treat Clinton and Obama the same, praise when they do right, protest when they do wrong. It would be racist to do otherwise.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

293. Clinton DID get a free pass. He pushed for and signed DOMA, then went all over the south

bragging that he signed DOMA. He wins Georgia as a result. Democrats were quite. Yes, some liberals spoke out, but for the most part, Clinton got the pass!

[dsc]

295. the same people who are speaking out now could it be

Oh, and the notion he ran ads all over the South is a myth. I lived in the South at the time (MS Delta by Ark and LA both of which he carried) and there were no ads, not a single ad, about DOMA.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

296. I don't know about where you lived but I lived

in GA and he DID get on local radio bragging about the fact that he supported DOMA. I simply don't see the hatred and venom directed at Bill Clinton at nearly the same degree as I'm seeing directed at Obama. Not even close. And even he admitted this during his DNC speech.

[dsc]

298. that would be hatred from the right

not the left that he was referring to in his speech. He must surely didn't say in his speech that gays were racist.

[Vinnie From Indy]

221. It's Chiffon!

Cheers!

[JackRiddler]

226. Cheap. Shameful.

Sorry, he is now the chief executive who did not shut down but expanded the Bushian surveillance state. If it was bad under Bush...

[hughee99]

227. Some people come to message boards to VENT.

They choose to post about things that stir their emotions, and it seems a lot easier to stir up the bad emotions than the good. I'll admit there have been a number of times I've been upset about something the Administration has done and thought, I should go check out the DU and see what THEIR take on it is. Maybe I'm upset just because I don't understand the issue fully. There have been times where I've learned things about an issue that make me realize I was wrong. There are times when I learn things that make it sound worse than I originally thought. There are times when people just disagree on whether it is good or not based on what they predict will happen later.

I've never found myself happy about something the President did and thought, "I should go to the DU and see what they're saying, maybe I'm happy just because I don't fully understand the issue."

Some people LIKE to argue on message boards, some people LIKE to argue with those who are of a roughly like-mind but disagree on a particular issue, and if you have an issue with the Administration, you can always come to the DU and find an argument already going on and join in.

And as far as racism clams on the DU go, do you recall the 2008 primaries when some of the Obama supporter were calling Clinton supporters racists while the Clinton supporters were calling the Obama supporters sexists? A sad time for civility on the DU, but whenever there's an argument, there will always be those who seek to take the easy way out and just slap a label on their opponent so they don't have to deal with the arguments being made.

[JackRiddler]

228. And as for Berlin, you have confused 2013 with 2008.

Obama in Berlin, 2008:



Obama in Berlin, 2013:



Besides the relative extreme sparseness of the establishment crowd in attendance, note that on the far side of Brandenburg Gate in this photo, the wall has been re-created, possibly to prevent access to the unwanted.

I lived in Berlin for 10 years, by the way, so I know what I'm looking at. The 2008 crowd was estimated at 250,000, the 2013 crowd looks like 5 to 10.

A few more here:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/berlin-obama-2013-vs-2008/66388/

Howzabout you correct yourself on an obvious mistake?

[MannyGoldstein]

234. You Liberals with your "facts" and "history" (nm)

[OrwellwasRight]

259. +1

Doesn't the OP know we've ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia?

[liberal_at_heart]

231. as long as my son is being cheated out of a good education I will criticize Obama and every other

democrat. I am pissed at the entire party right now, and so are a lot of people for very legitimate reasons. The people of this country are being cheated out of a lot of things because both parties have been bought by the 1%. You want to know why all some of us post are negative posts? That is why.

[Prophet 451]

235. He's not been as good as I wanted him to be

That's the honest truth. Obama has done a lot of things that I could give him credit for (such as civil rights and SCOTUS picks, to name just two). But he's not as far to the left as I am and I've been disappointed in some of the things he's done.
His healthcare bill wasn't strong enough and didn't fight hard enough for the public option. I dislike his use of drones and his admin's surveillance of, seemingly, the entire world. The stimulus wasn't big enough (as every economist said at the time) and, personally, I don't think he uses the bully pulpit half as often as he should (although I acknowledge that overusing it would make it ineffective).

Don't misunderstand me. There are a lot of things I could and have praised Obama for. But dammit, I wanted Superman and Clark Kent showed up for the job.

(for those slow of thinking: I am both expressing my expectations and also acknowledging that those expectations were unreasonable)

[Enrique]

237. Nancy Pelosi used to be called a "bitch" here

before Obama was president, Pelosi could be called a bitch and most people were ok with it. To ProSense's credit, she was one of the very few people who defended Pelosi. Cali was another one. It was really just a handful.

You could not post a thread here about Pelosi or Reid without getting a flood of abuse as a response. It was completely different than with Obama, it was unfounded abuse. Unthinking, little more than namecalling.

People rarely call Obama names, certainly not abusive names anywhere near as strong as "bitch". They would be alerted and hidden in seconds, while calling Pelosi a bitch was allowed by the moderators.

[HiPointDem]

261. a search reveals that what you cast as some everyday occurrence actually happened about

3 times since 2005.

[Safetykitten]

238. Hi, I am going to post something causing something and I do not know the answer...

But I will make sure I am leading you to the conclusion that it's racist, petulant, gay Democrats mostly...well I don't come out and say it, but...

"That doesn't mean the left is racist for making very similar irrational arguments (Obama has been called fascist by both the left and the right) - but there has to be an explanation for that irrationality. What is it? To wonder if it is racism, when the attacks are so eerily similar to the racist attacks from the right, is not entirely unreasonable. I don't think it's true for a vast majority of DUers or liberals ... but there does appear to be a collection of people who, from day one decided they didn't like Obama and were going to express that dislike at every chance they got - without ever admitting when he did something right."

Congrats, you wonderful little ditty writer that just explained to us that well, kinda, don't make me say it, I don't think so, but how can you ignore it...oh it's racist DEMOCRATS!

By the way, my first boyfriend was African American...and I'm GAY AND WHITE. Oh wait...I must be a racist because loving an African American as a boyfriend is totally different from having one as a President.

[MannyGoldstein]

244. Racism. Definitely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023051604

[Safetykitten]

247. Manny, help me! I may be a closet racist and not know it! What do I do?

[Amonester]

252. I don't think it's racism at all. (Not here.)

I think it's an understandable state of frustration from unfulfilled (good) idealism.

noT Stupid (and criminal) racism.

In the words of the great Jim Morrison: "We Want The World, And We Want it.... NOw?"

[Puzzledtraveller]

253. Swing and a miss

[DebJ]

256. how about this reason: "I don't belong to an organized party. I'm a Democrat."

quote from Will Rogers.

The Dems are the party of diversity, which means dissension.
The Dems are the party of idealist dreamers, which means for a certain percentage
an inability to accept some harsh realities / to be less than pragmatic.

It is who we are.

We will harshly criticize ANYONE in our party who is in office.
We never walk lock-step, and as idealists and dreamers, will
never, ever be satisfied with the status quo or with progress.

[steve2470]

260. This is my take on things

1- The membership, both posting and lurking, ranges from true neo-Nazis (usually lurking) to Communist to hard-core right wing Libertarian to anarchist to Democrats (from all points of the spectrum in the party) to Republicans (both posting and lurking) to paid and unpaid trolls. No, I have no idea who anyone is, apart from their self-identification.

2- Out of that spectrum, predictably, some sub-groups are seldom, if ever, going to approve of President Obama's behavior and policies. Some more than others. Only a true believer is going to 100% approve of PBO and his policies and post that way. The rest of us like PBO to varying degrees and approve of his policies to varying degrees.

3- You have the vocal posting minority, both for and against. The rest of us are lurkers or post when we feel like it and when we have time. I'm in the "when I feel like it" group.

4- It is human nature, I think, to find fault and express that more readily, than to approve and express that. Maybe I'm jaundiced, but that's how I see it. Perhaps in other countries and cultures it is not that way. I've always lived in the USA, so my perspective is very biased.

Do I think PBO is perfect in every way ? No. Do I agree with 100% of his policies, both stated and acted upon ? No. Am I a very loyal Democrat since 1976 ? Yes. Do I think PBO is doing the best he can, under extremely difficult circumstances ? Yes. Do I think he is a fundamentally decent, kind and intelligent man ? Yes I do.

I'm part of what (ugh) Nixon called, "Silent Majority". I'll speak up when I feel like it. I'm not a debater by heart and I get my feelings hurt too easily. I've seen posters tell people like me to leave this site. I won't. I love this place and the good-hearted people here are a treat.

Just remember, not everyone who posts is a) a Democrat in real life and b) well-intentioned.

[intaglio]

264. Largely overblown expectations and disappointment that it was not Hillary

Not racism. There are some few amongst those I have called "kneejerk revolutionaries" who would be against any US politicians efforts. There are also agents provocateurs and some die hard rabid socialists who desire any left of centre politician to fail in the futile hope that there would be a socialist revolution as the country's politicians moved to the right.

I warned at the time that Obama was elected that he was a politician and as such he could not accomplish the things that the left hoped he would accomplish. They expected him to govern by executive order and make appointments during recess if Congress proved intractable but that was never going to happen. Obama was never going to do that because he has a far deeper understanding of the Constitution than his haters and in all cases he wants his actions to be underwritten by Congress, both by statute and by funding

If the President's record is examined he has done more for reform than almost any President since Johnson but it is not enough, especially for the rabid (and noisy) socialists. There is the complaint about gay rights and women's rights, except that has always been a matter for the States, not Federal government. Lacking Congressional support for a positive repeal of DOMA (a bill that was signed into law by Pres. Clinton) Pres. Obama did the only thing he could do, which was to stop defending the act in the courts.

Similarly for healthcare reform; he was never, ever going to be able to introduce a free at the point of delivery healthcare system - so he did what he could. The resulting bill is very far from perfect yet compared to what had gone before is pretty damn good.

On legalisation (of marijuana), again he has tried to work within the system, yet (unlike DOMA) it is not possible to stop enforcement actions against one drug but continue them against the suite of other drugs that are illegal. If that happened drug dealers in cocaine or heroine arrested under federal law would go straight to the courts with the valid argument that the law had been inequitably applied.

Leaving Iraq was accomplished, yet US forces are still in Afghanistan, haters ignore the difference between the two. On the one hand Iraq could support a democratic government that would largely maintain control over the country - and stand up to Iranian extremism. On the other is Afghanistan which has no history of democracy as well as a corrupt and venal government that will fold up and run off with as much money as they can muster as soon as the Taliban begins to exert it's authority; yet the haters want the US out ...

Drones; ignoring the wilder flights of paranoia seen on DU about scary drones killing US citizens what would be the alternative in foreign countries? Letting bands of insurgents and terrorists enlarge until they did become a threat? Sending troops in? Only using drones strikes when there is no possible chance of innocents dying? That last seems attractive - but that sort of chance doesn't happen because training and concentration for these groups happens within a community. Send in the SEALs or the SAS? Ignoring the likelihood of losses to these small, elite groups, to ensure they succeeded it is likely civilians would be killed as well as well.

Spying on US emails/Cellphones and whatever. Well, firstly, it happens - just not in the way the haters tell you it happens. There is a mass of data out there and, guess what? interested parties collect it and there is nothing illegal in that. If that data supports it then application can be made for a formal access to the communications. But, I hear the chicken littles cry, the e-mails are being stored! Well ... welcome to the modern world. E-mails, even ones seemingly lost, are stored somewhere; just like when you hit "delete" on your computer it is only the index marker on the hard disc that vanishes.

Now, phone calls are another matter - the British are spying on you - and the Australians - oh, yes and the Japanese - and, probably, the Spanish. Because for many years all calls routed through these countries have been monitored and latterly recorded, Why? because they can and because satellite and telephony cables from the USA come ashore in those countries. Ever since the Cold War the USA has been interested in people who talk to foreign nationals, except they cannot because of the Constitution. The intelligence services of the aforementioned countries are not bound by the Constitution and were listening in to a small proportion of calls anyway. So, in exchange for oversight of the spying the USA part funds the data collection efforts. This oversight is not, primarily, about spying but is about making sure these countries do not use the data for their own advantage - with a side order of being able to use these other governments to track suspicious activity.

Well, the haters say, this is surely Obama's fault because we first remember hearing about it when he was President! Strangely you would have to go back to Roosevelt, Truman and Ike for the origins of this. Enlargement happened under Kennedy and Johnson and such activities have been in the news about once every 5 years since 1988 and Paul Foot's (?) report about Menwith Hill and GCHQ in the UK.

Now I do not doubt that this activity is morally wrong, but legally? No. Should the President have done something about it? Maybe, except you can hear the cries from Congress about the ending of this program if you use your imagination.

So in answer to your question, not racism but a some people with short memories, a few outrage junkies and a few, very effective, s#1t stirrers.

[Kolesar]

266. ^That was really good

Those "rabid and noisy" socialists were using the framework of Ralph Nader on this forum a decade ago. That blew up on them because DU community could rally around the Democratic candidate. There was only so much they could do by continually advocating their third party pox.

A large number of Naderites stormed off a decade ago. I doubt if they were sincere. They were obsessives who loved the fight forum that the internet did offer to them.

[yurbud]

265. the criticisms from the left are the exact opposite of those of Fox News and based on substance

not personality or race.

I actually have a hard time reconciling that I like the guy as a person but object to his DLC, do no harm to the rich politics.

[forestpath]

272. Imagine. A poster with an offensive stereotype for a user name accusing people of being racist

for daring to criticize Obama for the exact same things they criticized Bush for.

Such over-inflated verbiosity is nothing but hypocritical hot air.

[MotherPetrie]

279. NO.FUCKING.SHIT!

[intaglio]

282. You didn't actually bother reading the post, did you?

The question asked was what is it if not racism and some have tried to answer. The problem is that some on the right are being racist about the President, check Freeper Madness, and some on the left issue the same criticisms; therefore the question has to be asked.

I would also suggest you work at spotting ironic screen names as opposed to making unthinking criticism.

[forestpath]

284. I read it. And it's a nice wordy bit of deflection in the guise of "asking" a question

while it's obvious the answer was predetermined.

My sense of irony is just fine and you can keep your suggestions.

[intaglio]

285. Fine,

Just don't let your preconceptions damage your arguments - as they have here.

[Vanje]

286. word

[pgr]

276. Good post - thank you

Lots of people don't like to face reality, particularly if it flies in the face of everything they've believed in their whole adult life, NOTHING is every 100% how it seems. Life is full of shades and contradictions. Take the best of it and fly with it.

Obama never said he was anything more than better than the opposition and... he has been. Not perfect by a long shot but certainly better. What more can one expect really? Vote for the Green Party and give your vote to the Conservatives, vote for the Liberals and hope to influence them a bet - that's life, get over it!

[Orsino]

278. Progressivism.

The hopes and dreams of a left-wingish message board were never going to survive years of contact with the agenda of a center-right pragmatist politician.

It's not just that he's not quite everything he promised; it's also that he's not nearly everything we desperately, desperately need. Every passing administration that fails to address looming crises makes our margin for error that much smaller.

Obama is a great politician, and may be better than America really deserves. However, we need him to be much more than that, and we need it twenty years ago.

[Rise Rebel Resist]

281. what u can't criticise policy

the racism tag is a piss poor sub for not being able to defend policy

[intaglio]

283. Actually the policies can be defended

and very easily.

[Rise Rebel Resist]

289. then why resort to this low brow shit

[intaglio]

292. Of course, low brow,

I refer you to my response 264
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3052541
If you don't want to read it it is up to you.

some error in picking up the link, edited

[Rise Rebel Resist]

297. Sub racism for hate and the link runs into the same dogma

people of numerous political beliefs can have valid criticism of policy either on ideological grounds or how its run with their taxes. there's a danger of not effectively laying criticism to rest. instead the intellectual laziness in arguments seem to pass in defense

[intaglio]

304. Sorry but word salad is not in my diet ...

please edit for clarity. May I suggest using capital letters at the start of sentences and commas to separate clauses.

As far as can be told you seem to think my post was agreeing with the OP, and you cannot really get much more wrong than that.

[warrior1]

287. another kick

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

290. If it's not racism or hate (see ProSense's OP), then it must be The Black Tax

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

294. What you're describing here is called The Black Tax. Plain and simple.

[Scurrilous]

299. Kick

[BklnDem75]

301. K&R

It's gotten beyond ridiculous here. Even recycled crap causes fresh outrage.

Glad you're still about, DI.

[Pholus]

302. Last line is a leading sentence. I will not be boxed in by your framing.

The reasoning behind my displeasure is that I voted for the anti-Bush. Bush had to end. On the issues that matter to me, I got Bush-lite. That is NOT saying that he isn't a fine president, it isn't saying he hasn't done a lot of good, it isn't saying I regret voting for him twice.

But it does say that I did not get what I thought I was going to get about the issues that mattered most to me. I am disappointed. Badly.

Now, candidate Obama told us to "Hold my feet to the fire." Sounds to me like an invitation to let him know when you want more from him.
But there are plenty of people who apparently think he is too fragile a soul to hear about failures. Many posters here love President Obama the Icon exactly like Rethugs like America the Icon. Through sloganeering: "USA! USA!" As Franken describes it, with a four-year-old's version of love that equates dissatisfaction with all-out hate or envy, or dare it be taken even further and branded as racism...

If you're admitting that the President is not mature enough to handle criticism ON THE JOB HE IS DOING then perhaps we did cast our votes mistakenly. But I get the impression that it is not my President with that problem, just some of my fellow Democrats.

[Eddie Haskell]

303. Is this racist?

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obamas-2nd-term-it-bill-clintons-3rd-or-it-ronald-reagans-9th

In the game of advancing the interests of the American people, it seems, Democrats and Republicans are not mutual opponents. They are a tag team, each one pushing the ball further and further down the field in the wrong direction. It's still winter in America, and the dead hand of Ronald Reagan still guides this nation, decades after his exit from the White House. Welcome to the 9th term of Ronald Reagan, in the person of Democrat Barack Hussein Obama.