I'm Not a Racist...I'm a Democrat.

posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 09/22/2009 @ 9:55pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (149)

Subscribe Now

For weeks the media have been covering "racism in health care reform opposition." For the most part I've found this political moment to be an interesting opportunity to discuss the meanings of race, the history of racial exclusion and violence, and the ongoing realities of racial inequality in America.

But I have also been a little baffled as to why so many liberal white Americans are shocked about the sometimes explicit, but far more often, simply implied racial bias that has infected some of the opposition to the Obama administration. My scholarship and teaching center on issues of race, blackness, and African American politics, and while I believe "racism" is interesting and important; it is not exactly breaking news. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune laughingly suggested that he was telling his white liberal friends who were aghast at the vitriol aimed at President Obama, "welcome to my world."

My surprise that "racism" has dominated the news cycle for so long turned to tangible anxiety when President Clinton appeared on Larry King Live. Former President Clinton made a compelling case for health care reform and when asked about the racial motivations of the opposition he said:

"I don't believe that all the people who oppose him [Obama] on health care -- and all the conservatives -- are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now would be opposing him then."

I agree with Clinton that the opposition to President Obama's plan is about health care reform, not about race. Any Democratic president who introduced health care reform was going to be met with vicious, organized opposition. No one knows this better than the Clintons whose own health care reform efforts were effectively shut down by organized efforts on the Right.

The opposition is about policy and profits, but the frames, the tone, and the strategies of that opposition are always unique to the opponent. When the Clintons introduced health care reform they were not called Witch Doctors or monkeys. Racialized language and images are used to help frame arguments against Obama in particular.

But the part of the interview that worries me comes next, when President Clinton said,

"While I have devoted my life to getting rid of racism, I think this [health care] is a fight that my president and our party -- this is one we need to win on the merits."

This statement required a double take. President Clinton said that he has devoted his life to getting rid of racism? And no one challenged this assertion?

President Clinton has a very checkered past involving racial innuendo, stereotypes, and racialized political strategies. When he first ran for President in 1992 Bill Clinton attacked hip-hop artist Sister Souljah during his speech to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. He likened her to former Klansman David Duke. After the 1984 and 1988 defeats of Democratic candidates, Clinton knew he needed to signal his independence from Jesse Jackson and the racially progressive wing of the Democratic Party. His unprovoked attack on Souljah was part of that active distancing. But, Clinton's strategy was complex. During that same election, he also appeared on the Arsenio Hall show where he played the Saxophone. Clinton has always been masterful at both embracing and pushing away from black communities, black voters, and black interests based on his own political needs at the moment. Some have accused President Obama of using similar tactics.

Clinton used welfare reform and crime legislation to cement his position as a moderate "new" Democrat. Clinton's policies made life substantially more difficult for poor black mothers and led to the incarceration of tens of thousands more black men. Repeatedly during his presidency Clinton found his way to the center by ignoring the material needs of black communities. He refused to fight for his nominee and law school friend Lani Guinier who was viciously and inaccurately labeled a "quota queen." And when his wife was battling Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, President Clinton's own voice sounded shrill in precisely the same ways as some of Obama's current opponents.

Despite his office in Harlem and his efforts in Africa, I am unconvinced by President Clinton's assertion of a lifetime commitment to battling racism.

I recognize that this is where the public conversation falls apart. I am not claiming that President Clinton is a racist who harbors negative racial animus toward black people. I suspect the opposite is true. Clinton has an amazing cultural ease and familiarity with black people. It is one of the reasons he was so wildly popular among black voters despite his often troubling policies. I've seen President Clinton sing, from memory, all the verses to James Weldon Johnson's Lift Every Voice and Sing. I bet that fewer than 50% of the Congressional Black Caucus knows this unofficial black national anthem by heart.

But President Clinton's cultural ease, personal familiarity, and even physical proximity to blackness and black people is not the point, his willingness to deploy racial strategies for political purposes and to create policies with a disparate racial impact is the point.

Somehow our public discourse on racism has devolved to a kind of investigative search of the human heart. We want to figure out if the Tea Party protesters are racist by making guesses about how they feel about black people. In truth, I don't really care how they feel. Maybe they hate Obama because he is black, or because he is a Democrat, or just because they think he dresses oddly. Who cares?

The point is that some members of the GOP, the health care industry, and some people in the crowds are using strategies, language, and images that are meant to stoke racial fear and anxiety. Many have principled opposition to the reforms being proposed by the administration, but that opposition is swimming in a sea of racial ugliness.

But when I heard President Clinton's revision of his own political racial history it struck me that the biggest issue may not be uncovering racism on the Right, it may be that we are providing cover for racism on the Left. If opposing Obama means you are a racist, then supporting Obama must mean you are not a racist. No need to worry with substantive efforts to compensate historic injustices or address contemporary inequalities, just keep wearing your Obama '08 shirt and you can have a free pass on racial politics.

Racism is not the the sole domain of Republicans, Conservatives or Southerners. Not all racists pepper their conversation with the N-word or secretly desire the extermination of black and brown people. Racism is complex, multi-layered, and deeply rooted in the American story. Name calling is not helpful in uprooting racism, but neither is a false sense of moral superiority.

Comments (149)

I dont think the idea of supporting a policy or not supporting a policy makes one a racist...

What seems to be a pattern is emerging... and it is finaly drawing attention for most people who never thought about racism, ..it is that the word racism has been wash out to a meaningless charge against ones opponent when one won't accept as genuine the opposition to an idea or policy...and that charge always comes from the left...the democrat party left...from those who claim to like free spirit debate at town halls....and then when opposuition arrives, even in the form of wheel chair vets mor grandmas...those same people claim racism is the reason many, and many more than you realise, oppose the programs congress is imposing on us...in a hurry...

I have seen the author on TV...and I think she misses the entire point of the opposition to her views....

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/22/2009 @ 10:23pm
I agree with you, Melissa. Everyone born in this country is affected by its particular culture of racism. We can't deny it. I work on it, but I know it's there. I hate it when people say "I'm not racist."

What I expected and have observed is an increase in chatter and ugliness toward President Obama, much more than toward any other president in terms of language & use of symbolism.

I feel like many people feel emboldened to say horrible, disrespectful things because he is black. I believe, deep down, many Americans (whether they are aware of it or not) are deeply disturbed that a black man became the president of this country. And I believe the right is using this to their advantage.

I don't feel morally superior, but I do feel frustrated that people didn't see this coming. I was sure Obama could get elected, but accepted? In my own lifetime (which isn't that long, I'm 45) I can remember official, not just implied, restrictions on the activities of black people. It's a pretty quick time between that and having a black president. I couldn't imagine it happening without serious growing pains. I hope that is all this is.

I wish people had more empathy. And I wish our history books were more accurate. Romanticizing relationships planters had with their slaves--sorry, it was rape. He had ALL the power. Downplaying heroic efforts of black people, and the intelligence of black people. Truth & honesty with both self & others would bring us a long way.

Thanks for listening, and keep up the good work!

Julie

Posted by juliawb at 09/22/2009 @ 10:30pm
I hate it when people say "I'm not racist."

Posted by juliawb at 09/22/2009 @ 10:30pm

•• i'm not racist.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/22/2009 @ 10:36pm
"If opposing Obama means you are a racist, then supporting Obama must mean you are not a racist"

i oppose mr. obama because he is terrible.

tim geithner? por favor.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/22/2009 @ 10:37pm
Dr. Lacewell -

EVERYTHING that you have said about President Clinton can be equally applied to President Obama. He too has been "willing to deploy racial strategies for political purposes and to create policies with a disparate racial impact."

Obama's constant chiding of black men for being inadequate fathers is reminiscent of Clinton's critique on Sister Souljah. Both critiques are meant to tap into centrist, white American positions and attitudes towards black people.

Similarly, his infamous speech on race during the primaries - while a brilliant landmark in its own right - was primarily a response to electoral pressures and to reassure white Americans that he wasn't some radical black guy.

Obama's campaign also came under fire for removing hijab-clad women from the background in one of his rallies, presumably because they didn't want an image of Obama giving a speech flanked by hijab-wearing Muslim women.

If you want to talk about policies that will have a disparate racial impact, let's talk about Obama's decision not to cover abortions in his health care plan. This will certainly have a disparate racial impact on poor black women.

So, yes, time and time again, Obama has been willing to deploy racial strategies to win over and reassure centrist, white voters.

Posted by klondiker at 09/22/2009 @ 10:40pm
MH-L: "......the biggest issue may not be uncovering racism on the Right, it may be that we are providing cover for racism on the Left. If opposing Obama means you are a racist, then supporting Obama must mean you are not a racist."

If you're a real scholar actually interested in advancing black America, I'd suggest you deal with where the real racism is, and it's practiced by the Left, hidden behind the dollar sign.

The brain trusts of the Dem Party for 2 generations now, are the `slave' owners while their field foremen come in the form of Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, Jessie Jackson, and the `helpful' folks at ACORN.

To mold the slavish black mind, they have infiltrated academia and made sure urban blacks stay on the plantation for their entire lives.

Then, of course, there are the intellectual black front men/women like Prof. Gates and yourself to provide just the right counterparts to the white Libs who are all in on the system. No science types of course, just the soft, mushy subjects that "center on issues of race, blackness, and African American politics" that is worth absolutely nothing on the global market or much of the US itself.....but keeps the lights burning for you, doesn't it?

Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 10:45pm
"When the Clintons introduced health care reform they were not called Witch Doctors or monkeys. Racialized language and images are used to help frame arguments against Obama in particular."

--

Yes, this is true. In the same way, sexualized language and images have been used to frame arguments against Hillary Clinton. She has been called - including by those on the left - a shrew, harpy, Bi**h, W*0re, hormonal, out-of-control, a wronged ex-wife, etc, etc. All these are sexualized images, and all were deployed in abundance during the campaign, yet I didn't see you talk about them.

Dr. Lacewell, I know you are a scholar of race, so I can understand why you focus on that. But, sometimes, I think that your prioritize race so much over other forms of identity, like gender and class, that you overlook a great deal of injustice that happens. Your silence on the sexist treatment of Clinton disappointed me greatly.

Posted by klondiker at 09/22/2009 @ 10:49pm
I feel like many people feel emboldened to say horrible, disrespectful things because he is black.

Julie

Posted by juliawb at 09/22/2009 @ 10:30pm

Such naivette!

IF BHO is white, and having failed to stimulate the economy with $800 Billion, having jacked up the deficits by almost 10 TRILLIONS, have pissed off just about all or allies, mishandled Honduras....his approval would be in the 30s' if not lower.

BECAUSE MAGIC IS BLACK, he's been given more slack than two white POTUSes combined in the 8 months of fuckups he's engineered!

HE IS INCOMPETENT! Be it lack or experience or just relatively low IQ, good enough for AA entries, but not high enough to be revealed...don't matter!

He is the most feminen-like POTUS yet, in a mean, bitchy sort of way!

Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 10:54pm
Whoa - hold on just a second - so support for welfare reform should be considered part of President Clinton's "checkered past" on racial issues?

Policies can and should be debated on merits, and many policies have racial implications. But when Prof. Harris-Lacewell attempts to link an ostensibly genuine ideological disagreement with some form of racial "strategy" on the part of President Clinton, she ends up making the exact mistake she seems to disdain at the beginning of the article.

Any form of racial animus should be clearly and vocally rejected. Issues of importance should be debated honestly. But when academics attempt to frame any or all policy issues as a matter of racial strategy that they can then use to accuse others of a "checkered past," it cheapens the debate.

Posted by liberalcorner at 09/22/2009 @ 10:55pm
Obama's constant chiding of black men for being inadequate fathers is reminiscent of Clinton's critique on Sister Souljah....

Similarly, his infamous speech on race during the primaries....

Posted by klondiker at 09/22/2009 @ 10:40pm

Is there anyone else you'd prefer to give big time lectures to "black men" or infamous speeches to all? Rush Linmbaugh perhaps, or Michael Steele? David Dukes? Hugo Chavez? Prof. Gates?

Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 10:59pm
Professor Lacewell,

Don't break your neck defending Clinton. He and his wife showed their true colors during the Democratic primaries.

Posted by TripLBee at 09/22/2009 @ 11:03pm
Another brilliant essay, Ms. Harris-Lacewell.

I've been wondering lately why anyone would ask a white person's (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) opinion of whether the violent rhetoric towards Obama revealed a hidden layer of racism never realized before. Granted, they've both lived in deep areas of the south and have certainly felt the effects of racism. But they haven't felt it as if they were actually black. Why would anyone ask Jim Wilson if he harbored racist attitudes? To me, there could never be any real weight to his answer. He shouldn't be making that call.

Certainly the questions could be asked of these men and/or women in the name of self-examinination of their own attitudes regarding race. But to ask a white person about the psychie of this nation's black citizens with regard to race seems futile at best.

Posted by 47songs at 09/22/2009 @ 11:14pm
MH-L: "Maybe they hate Obama because he is black, or because he is a Democrat, or just because they think he dresses oddly. Who cares?"

I think you do....but don't know how to scholarly address this "hate"!

From my POV, the Prime Suspects who may "hate" BHO, would be those who feel the most betrayed....and they would come from the ranks of his voters and not the 46% of Americans who didn't vote for him. As a member of the non-Hopey and non-Changey 46%, I must tell you The Messiah has performed superbly, I can't be any HAPPIER...he has surpassed my expectations....;~)

Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 11:21pm
The human RACE does have a full intellectualized range of denial, projection and ignorance, in its ranks to accept in those extremes, that our differences matter much much more terminally, than our similarities enlighten our salvation.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/22/2009 @ 11:23pm
1."Clinton used welfare reform and crime legislation to cement his position as a moderate "new" Democrat. Clinton's policies made life substantially more difficult for poor black mothers and led to the incarceration of tens of thousands more black men. Repeatedly during his presidency Clinton found his way to the center by ignoring the material needs of black communities.

Oh please, get a job or a life!

2. compensate historic injustices or address contemporary inequalities

Does this involve the hanging and whipping of slaveowner decendents?

3.Racism is not the the sole domain of Republicans, Conservatives or Southerners"

Just say all light skinned people or whites and quit mincing your words!

Continued reading of the writings of Melissa Harris-Lacewell is really an eye opener. It is totally unnecessary to indulge in such pseudo-intellectualizing of the subject of race as she does, and in particular the black race to which she is soley devoted.

There is nothing new to be discussed. Racebaiting, reverse racism, and sociatal extortion are familiar tools her contmporaries Jessie J.and Sharpton who simplistically and provocationally actually excel her efforts at doing!

She should ask herself why blackness since the 1960s is defined soley by a phsychosis purely of victimization and focuses on a persecution complexes at every utterance!

You are left to wonder why anyone would focus on such a spiritually empty souless effort of imagining affronts where there are none! What joy of life is obtained by assuming bias and prejudice where only disgust with unfounded and baseless accusations in the present day are the breeding ground for perhaps only real hatred!

This is the game of a real fool even if well educated and teaching at Princeton.

Posted by BigPasture at 09/22/2009 @ 11:31pm
er, The human RACE does have a full intellectualized range of denial, projection and ignorance, in its ranks 'that' accept in those extremes, where differences matter much much more terminally, than similarities enlighten their salvation.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/22/2009 @ 11:40pm
....Princeton.

Posted by BigPasture at 09/22/2009 @ 11:31pm

That's where the Dem elites train their helpers....like Ms. MH-L! They did well w/her.....to train the next generation of black helpers....gotta keep them blacks on the plantation....BHO is the proof with 92% of the black votes.

Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 11:41pm
Is there anyone else you'd prefer to give big time lectures to "black men" or infamous speeches to all? Rush Linmbaugh perhaps, or Michael Steele? David Dukes? Hugo Chavez? Prof. Gates?

Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 10:59pm

I wouldn't prefer anyone to give any lectures at all. Instead of lectures, how about enacting policies that can actually help black communities overcome problems of persistent poverty and lack of access?

My point was this: rather than showing a genuine commitment to helping black communities, Obama has used his frequent lectures to black men as a way to tap into centrist, white Americans and validate their views on lazy, unemployed, ne'er-do-well black men.

This seems to me a perfect example of "deploying racial strategies for political purposes," which is what the author is accusing Bill Clinton of doing.

Posted by klondiker at 09/22/2009 @ 11:46pm
Posted by klondiker at 09/22/2009 @ 11:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

how about enacting policies that can actually help black communities overcome problems of persistent poverty and lack of access?

Say, how about efforts by black families, communities, and individuals themselves? What laws and who is preventing them from excelling now over 50yrs later?

validate their views on lazy, unemployed, ne'er-do-well black men.

What have blacks themselves done to change these views?

"deploying racial strategies for political purposes,"

Isn't that the crux and substance of Obamas never ending campaign even now?

You tell us different!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/22/2009 @ 11:53pm
....how about enacting policies that can actually help black communities overcome problems of persistent poverty and lack of access?

....Obama has used his frequent lectures to black men as a way to tap into centrist, white Americans and validate their views on lazy, unemployed, ne'er-do-well black men.

This seems to me a perfect example of "deploying racial strategies for political purposes," which is what the author is accusing Bill Clinton of doing.

Posted by klondiker at 09/22/2009 @ 11:46pm

Any policies that haven't been tried before? And no, more money for the same failed programs in the past, like Welfare, doesn't count! Why not treat the black community just like poor Hispanic, Asian, White communities? They all do better than the blacks, now, why is that? I think it's because the votes are in the black community and that's why they have been had....by the Dem treating them as something special....yeah, easy votes to buy but have to keep them dumb and be professional victims.

The whites (and all other non-black races) don't need anyone to " validate their views on lazy, unemployed, ne'er-do-well black men".....it's as well ingrained as the blacks feel about themselves, as they were taught so well, by folks like Ms. Lacewell and the usual Northern race hustlers.

If Ms. Lacewell is NOT accusing BHO of "deploying racial strategies for political purposes," but did so accuse Clinton, it's because BHO is black, simple double standards......wise Negra can make better calls on matters of race, no?

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 12:03am
Clinton's wife wins first prize in racial baiting in the primaries, trying to take the redneck blue collar vote. She is his Secretary of State for crying out loud.

Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2009 @ 12:47am
Typical derisive nonsense comments left by "readers" of the post.

It isn't only healthcare that individuals from the right are ignorant about, it is anything that Obama has or will propose. Some call it subconscious racism ("You lie"), but more of it is overt racism (Beck, Limbarf- you know, the leaders of the Repugnant party).

If it was something to do with the policies proposed, then the right would have actual proposals, that didn't mirror anything they have done for the past 29 years, and logically present those ideas back to the public.

Besides, as Bill Maher put it, Americans are just stupid.

Posted by timeveritt at 09/23/2009 @ 01:16am
Additional quotes support this claim. Lee Atwater--who subsequently became perhaps the primary strategist in the 1988 Bush presidential campaign--described his political approach: ‘‘You start out in 1954 by saying n..... By 1968 you can't say n...; that hurts you. Backﬁres. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites" (Lamis, 1999, 7–8).

David Jacobs and Daniel Tope. 2008. "Race, Crime, and Republican Strength: Minority Politics in the Post-Civil Rights Era." Social Science Research 37: 1116-1129.

Posted by rjc98d at 09/23/2009 @ 01:40am
This article has given me a much deeper appreciation of the term, "Orwelian": that is redefining a word to mean the opposite of what it currently means in pursuit of a political agenda.

When Dr. King fought against racism, he was battling the racism where a man's worth is pre-judged by the color of his skin. That's why he spoke of his dream that one day his children will be judged upon their individual character not the color of their skin.

But then in the '80s a truly Orwelian transformation took place. The Left redefined "racism" to mean the opposite of what Dr. King spoke of. The Left redefined racism to mean when some groups have wealth and power and other groups don't. Individual merit or accomplishment has absolutely no place in Dr. Lacewell's racism.

She condems Pres. as a racist because his support of welfare reform reduced the subsidy of poor people: NOT blacks or white or hispanic or gay or southerners, but poor people. But since this policy did not explicitly increase the subsidy of black people as a group it is condemned as racist.

Like I said, truly Orwelian.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 06:32am
Oh, and if I remember correctly Lani Guiner lost support because she didn't pay taxes on undocumented help.

But according to Dr. Lacewell, since she was black President Clinton owed her more support than a white nominee in order to give blacks more power.

So because Clinton failed to treat her differently because of her race, he's a racist.

Like I said, truly Orwelian.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 06:39am
•• i'm not racist.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/22/2009 @ 10:36pm

I refuse to treat people differently because of the color of their skin. If we are using Dr. Lacewell's defintion were refusing to treat people differently because of their skin makes one a racist, I'm proud to say that I am a racist (according to Dr. Lacewell's definition.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 06:45am
In this Orwelian vien, Andrea Dworkin defined all sex as rape. As the father of two children, I'm proud to say I'm a rapist under Andrea Dworkin's defintion.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 06:47am
No, not all opposition to Obama is racist....nor all of conservatism.

HAPPY is...as is his mentor, Rush Limbaugh. You have to go no further than their embrace of "Magic" (with the "2nd word" left understood...and the DERIVATIVE of the "2nd word" understood as well by fellow ditto-heads).

Or HAPP's comments last night---"To mold the slavish black mind, they have infiltrated academia and made sure urban blacks stay on the plantation for their entire lives. "---Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 10:45pm

Note that? The black mind is "slavish" and can't think for itself? The subtext is obvious "Blacks are too STUPID to understand they're being used by Democrats!"

But most of the rest of the Right are not the real racists. They ENABLE the racists in the GOP. Keeping them happy (or "HAPPY") with everything from Reagan's talk of "welfare queens" to "reverse racism/discrimination" to "Obama's 'real' birth certificate". Because they NEED that racist segment to keep the Repub coalition together and hold onto the "Solid South" that they've had since 1980.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 07:22am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 06:47am

Somebody NOT on Darin's ignore...

ask him his source for that Andrea Dworkin "quote".....he won't have one.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 07:23am
Talk about throwing out a bulls eye to shoot at. Droopy had saliva flowing out of his mouth after 2 paragraphs. I just have a lowly college degree from the midwest but I have to ask is it really" bad "to hold a degree from Princeton? Everyone can now flog themselves over the race issue, what a fiasco.

Posted by whatozz at 09/23/2009 @ 07:43am
Somebody NOT on Darin's ignore... ask him his source for that Andrea Dworkin "quote".....he won't have one. Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 07:23am |

I'm sorry I won't be able to 'mule' messages for long...Darin is making me ill with his Orwellian redefinition of Orwellian (and apparent inability to read basic stats about how many poor people happen to be black).

It is definitely amusing that Happy and Darin trot out the same tired schtick on every thread with the word 'race' in the subject line. I may have to start avoiding them like threads about Israel with Larry and Sy.

Darin, you have very little understanding of Dr. King (he gave more than the one speech, you know) who was in complete solidarity with the POOR...not just the blacks and who realized that poverty is the shadow cast by racism on black society.

His vision:

- Anti-discrimination law - Increased union organization - An effective minimum wage law

The definition of this problem in terms of pulling black people (and white people) out of poverty began in the 60s, not the 80s...you remember the 2nd time we'd written off the Pugs as dead?...after Goldwater?

Posted by snowball777 at 09/23/2009 @ 08:11am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/23/2009 @ 01:09am |

Perhaps these poor misunderstood protesters who are really just trying to get across their opinions on healthcare reform, and not 'racists' per se, should spend a little more time crafting messages about actual policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDODfD3Unbs

And you can thank BECK for interjecting discussions about race (and whether or not Obama "hates white people" generally) weeks ago, not the left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQVk6LrJCBM

Posted by snowball777 at 09/23/2009 @ 08:30am
Racist. It's a powerful word. It even looks intimidating, like Nazi or Communist. It's not uniquely an American problem, it does and has always existed world wide. Neither is racism a two color problem. Two colors do most of the talking but what about the rest of America? If it's really about color then it should be noted that most Americans , and everyone else in the world for that matter, are lighter than black and darker than white. So what is this really about? Culture?

Posted by ChrisP at 09/23/2009 @ 08:49am
Racist. It's a powerful word. It even looks intimidating, like Nazi or Communist. It's not uniquely an American problem, it does and has always existed world wide. Neither is racism a two color problem. Two colors do most of the talking but what about the rest of America? If it's really about color then it should be noted that most Americans , and everyone else in the world for that matter, are lighter than black and darker than white. So what is this really about? Culture?

Posted by ChrisP at 09/23/2009 @ 08:50am
It's not uniquely an American problem, it does and has always existed world wide.

Posted by ChrisP at 09/23/2009 @ 08:50am

Are we becoming a nation like Yugoslavia, the USSR or Rwanda? What is our future, Switzerland or Northern Ireland?

Posted by Mistral at 09/23/2009 @ 09:17am
'Somebody NOT on Darin's ignore... ask him his source for that Andrea Dworkin "quote".....' -- Posted by snowball777 at 09/23/2009 @ 08:11am

'With her first book, "Woman Hating" (Dutton, 1974), Ms. Dworkin drew the lines in what she saw as a pitched battle against men's historical domination of women. She opposed all forms of pornography, which she believed incited violence against women. She was also critical of consensual sex between women and men, which she saw as an act of everyday subjugation in which women were accomplices.

"One of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man," Ms. Dworkin wrote in "Letters From a War Zone" (Dutton, 1989). Marriage, she added, "is a legal license to rape."' -- Margalit Fox -- New York Times -- 12 April, 2005 -- http:/ /www.nytimes.com/2005 /04/12/arts/12dworkin.html?ex=1270958400&en= 23188521b35f4103&ei= 5088&partner=rssnyt

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2009 @ 09:33am
The definition of this problem in terms of pulling black people (and white people) out of poverty began in the 60s, not the 80s...you remember the 2nd time we'd written off the Pugs as dead?...after Goldwater?

Posted by snowball777 at 09/23/2009 @ 08:11am

The govt has had a war on poverty for over 50 years, paid tillions upon trillions and every year needs an increase, and as far as Dr King, thats alot of "40 acres and a mule".....

...and it seems to be losing or one must conclued it is not winnable and......

...withdraw?

Govt can't pull people out of poverty, but it can keep them there by giving free food and shelter...how many free school meals, tutitions, (all opposed by teachers unions), of course, after school programs, heat assitance, free cheese...endless, except for demands for more..

people can pull themselves out with effort, drive, a little confidence, and perhaps, like me, a dose of fear...it serves to keep the machine on the tracks.

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 09:37am
Dr. Lacewell, I know you are a scholar of race, so I can understand why you focus on that. But, sometimes, I think that your prioritize race so much over other forms of identity, like gender and class, that you overlook a great deal of injustice that happens. Your silence on the sexist treatment of Clinton disappointed me greatly.

Posted by klondiker at 09/22/2009 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--Melissa's only interested in advancing her own agenda. She profits if race is the issue. So, she will do her best to make race the issue.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 09:49am
No, not all opposition to Obama is racist....nor all of conservatism.

HAPPY is...as is his mentor, Rush Limbaugh. You have to go no further than their embrace of "Magic" (with the "2nd word" left understood...and the DERIVATIVE of the "2nd word" understood as well by fellow ditto-heads).

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 07:22am

LMAO!

You've totally lost it.....as I'm sure long-time Regulars noticed, even those on your side.

It's tough to be on the side of the warmongers, huh?

It's tough to defend the indefensible like a Wise Latina?

It's tough to uphold an $800 Billion Pork Fest that does twats to the short-term Economy, huh?

It's tough to see Magic be praised by the likes of Chavez?

It's tough to know that The Messiah sucks and is NO leader...but is always `present' and `ready to report for duty' when the Legacy Media calls, huh?

It's tough to know that the bankers are raking it in playing the money carry trade at near 0% interest, huh?

It's tough to know that this smart cookies, racist or not, is raking it in playing this fat-cat system The Annointed One is feeding oxygen to, huh?

His MAGIC is working just fine.....I like it!

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 09:52am
The human RACE does have a full intellectualized range of denial, projection and ignorance, in its ranks to accept in those extremes, that our differences matter much much more terminally, than our similarities enlighten our salvation.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/22/2009 @ 11:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--Melissa has to ignore the similarities. Her entire career is based on the differences...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 09:53am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2009 @ 09:33am

Didn't really help, HL. Darin said that "Dworkin defined all SEX was rape"....not "marriage".

He heard that somewhere and repeated it. Dworkin herself noted the difference and how she was applying it to her own abusive marriage AND how the word was changed to "sex" by the Porn Industry to discredit her opposition to porn.

Oddly, you RIGHT-WINGERS are now spreading a meme....created by....pornographers!!!!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 09:55am
Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 07:22am

I do not believe for a moment that Happy is a racist noir do I believe Limbaugh is....

If you truely believe that Mask, then you miss the entire point of Limbaugh, and Happy, as well as most others on the conservative side...I have listened to Rush on and off over the years, and he is right about one thing, and that is you have to listen for a few weeks to get his "schtick"...I find him many things,including bombastic, boring, bright, articulate to name a few... but it is too easy,lazy, disingenuious, unaware, and superficial to call him a racist. Shallow thinkers will jump on that label as will others who fear him because some of his statements ring true and they do not want to believe it.

He is correct when he says the left, and the Democratic Party in particular, have trapped the majority of black people in their status by design...and I believe that is racist..should any black people proclaim their belief in conservativism, they are quickly vilified by the "progressive" whites and then the rest...that, to me, is racists. It leaves no room for individual thought or opinion.

and you seem a little too involved with the issues to miss those points...if you would archive Rush as much as you do all of our posting nonsense here, you too, would be an expert on Rush and might have an educated opinon on his views.

I also believe, but am not sure, but the "Magic Negro" label came from a LA Times reporter..hardly a right wing media....

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 09:56am
Anyone here defines "recovery" in the same sense as our Feds? Anyone thinks it's NOT tempting to borrow dollars at effectively 0%, buy appreciating currencies, higher-yielding non-dollar bonds or hard assets overseas (while the dollar drops) that will be worth a boatload more in dollars later, almost guaranteed, huh?

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

Fed likely to leave economic supports in place To foster recovery, Fed likely to leave rates at record-low, economic supports in place

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nurturing a nascent recovery, Federal Reserve policymakers are sure to leave a key interest rate at a record low and probably will keep other economic supports in place.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues, who resumed meeting Wednesday morning, are expected to announce in the afternoon that the recession is likely over and that America's economic and financial climate is improving. But they'll also warn that rising unemployment, and still hard-to-get-credit for many people and companies, will make for a plodding rebound.

"We're kind of in an economic purgatory right now. We're in a recovery but it won't feel like one to Main Street," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group. "There's still a lot for the Fed to do to foster a lasting economic recovery."...

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 10:00am
Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 07:22am

I do not believe for a moment that Happy is a racist noir do I believe Limbaugh is....

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 09:56am

Thanks, JM!

We now realize that MASK belongs to that part of Dem slave owners and them slaves can NOT ever leave....those that do, are called Oreos or some such `nice' names!

The Hispanics are overtaking the blacks numerically and will gain political power at an accelerating pace. I wonder just how "in" on the Dem Party's black slave `system' they will be?

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 10:10am
The Hispanics are overtaking the blacks numerically and will gain political power at an accelerating pace. I wonder just how "in" on the Dem Party's black slave `system' they will be?

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 10:10am

Not many, but the don't count the progressive efforts out...

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 10:14am
Posted by snowball777 at 09/23/2009 @ 08:11am

Thanks, Snowball for playing mule. I appologize for making you ill. I'll comment again in a moment.

Mask got me. The quote is not authentic. According to Snopes.com the claim that CATHERINE MacKINNON said "all sex is rape" is false. The article does mention Dworking, though.

"Dworking has also disavowed the quote as a false statement circulated by her opponents. She has denied saying that "all sex is rape" or that "all men are rapists." When asked to explain her views on the topic Dworkin replied: 'Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. I must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point,'"

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

Thank you for disabusing me of this notion.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 10:33am
Oops, its Dworkin. Adding the "g" to a word ending in "in" such as "withing" is a typo I make frequently. The misspelling wasn't intended as a slight.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 10:35am
"What seems to be a pattern is emerging... and it is finaly drawing attention for most people who never thought about racism, ..it is that the word racism has been wash out to a meaningless charge against ones opponent when one won't accept as genuine the opposition to an idea or policy...and that charge always comes from the left"

there's a fairly obvious reason for the claim that charges of racism always "come from the left," but i won't get into that.

i do take issue, however, that the opposition to obama's policies is entirely "genuine." as we have seen, with a large segment of the protestors, ignorance about obama's policies is not only commonplace, it is profound. most of the charges being levelled, by the right wing, are so incredibly false, that even some town halls are seeing some pushback from people. the 'death panels' claim comes to mind.

then there is the race-baiting by limbaugh ("in obama's american, black kids beat up white kids on the bus") and beck ("i think obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people"). i'm sorry, but that's blatant racism, and a good deal of protestors listen to, and even worship, these guys.

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:44am
Okay, Snowball

I was born in 1965. I spent the '70s and early '80s in public school in suburban and rural Minnesota. "Racism" was all about prejudical bigotry. The first time I hear the "disparate power among groups" definition of racism was from a man of Indian heritage in a corporate training session at my first empoyer around 1990.

I immediately recognized the power of confusing the emotional revulsion one has developed toward individuals who treated people differently based on skin color and transferring that revulsion to groups. But groups don't make conscious decsions regarding behavior. Groups don't have intentions. Groups only have statistics.

Dr. Lacewell explictitly faulted President Clinton as racist because he didn't treat Lani Guinier differently because of her race. This is the exact opposit of the definition of racism that I was taught in public school in the '70s. How can you not see that as an Orwellian manipulation of language?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 10:46am
and you know, if the opposition isn't entirely genuine, and there is plenty of evidence to back up this claim (like the posters of him dressed in tribal african dress, with war paint, bones in his nose, and headdress), then from where *does* the opposition to obama emanate?

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:50am
just as it is difficult to know how racism feels for a white person, it is difficult for a man to know how sexism feels. you really have to be in someone else's shoes to know how it feels.

anybody here get profiled by police? pulled over? handcuffed? patted down? thrown in jail? for being black?

just curious. anyone??

we know maasch hasn't.

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:53am
I'm sorry I won't be able to 'mule' messages for long...Darin is making me ill with his Orwellian redefinition of Orwellian (and apparent inability to read basic stats about how many poor people happen to be black).

Darin, you have very little understanding of Dr. King (he gave more than the one speech, you know) who was in complete solidarity with the POOR...not just the blacks and who realized that poverty is the shadow cast by racism on black society.

His vision:

- Anti-discrimination law - Increased union organization - An effective minimum wage law

Posted by snowball777 at 09/23/2009 @ 08:11am

I'm aware that a disproportionate percentage of those in poverty are black. I's just saything there is nothing special about being poor and black. Being poor sucks whether you are white or black. It's not like being poor is a picnic if you happen to be white.

I am aware of Dr. King's advocacy for greater collectivism as a prescription for poverty. I'm aware he was shot while advocating for striking workers. That doesn't change the fact that when he fought racism he was fighting to end the practice of individuals and institutions having two sets of rules: one treating whites one way and blacks a different why.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 10:58am
"... ignorance about obama's policies is not only commonplace..."

So Darlaloon, perhaps you can enlighten us all...what is Obamas policy?

I assure you, those on the left have no idea either, since there isn't a bill yet...

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:44am

then from where *does* the opposition to obama emanate?

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:50am

His entire history in church, Illinois Senate, his youthful experience gtowing up outside the US...

his personal philosophy about the direction he wants to take America.

This should keep you busy for years.

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 10:59am
The AA community better get the reparations thing done within the next 20 years. I don't think the Hispanic majority after 2030 will feel the need to compensate for slavery in the 1700's. Clock is ticking.

Posted by sntauri at 09/23/2009 @ 11:09am
just as it is difficult to know how racism feels for a white person, it is difficult for a man to know how sexism feels. you really have to be in someone else's shoes to know how it feels. anybody here get profiled by police? pulled over? handcuffed? patted down? thrown in jail? for being black? just curious. anyone?? we know maasch hasn't. Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

--I was pulled over once after going through a toll booth. The cop asked me a least 5 or 6 times if I had a weapon in my car. He had me pulled over for at least a half an hour. Finally I said "why do you keep asking me that?"...he said I looked suspicious when after I paid the toll booth operator, like I was reaching down to try to hide something. I said, "I was putting my change in the center console."

I drive a '97 dodge intrepid; the right rear bumper is smashed in; and it just looks old and generally beat up.

By any standard of measuring wealth I am "poor." I'm also white. Cops profile us too...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 11:10am
"His entire history in church, Illinois Senate, his youthful experience gtowing up outside the US... his personal philosophy about the direction he wants to take America."

exactly my point. profound ignorance, as you have demonstrated.

maasch, hard at work again this morning?

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 11:12am
I am shocked that Ms Lacewell is surprised that Clinton think he has battle racism. First he is a politician, he is going to say things that make him look better. Second he is a politician, in order to get anything done you have to be willing to make deals, or use the tactics needed to get elected.

I seriously doubt you have an ideololized belief about the way things work in politics. So for you to be so suprised by Clinton's statement seems not altogether honest. More likely an excuse to write an essay for the Nation.

Posted by Extraneous at 09/23/2009 @ 11:22am
The AA community better get the reparations thing done within the next 20 years. I don't think the Hispanic majority after 2030 will feel the need to compensate for slavery in the 1700's. Clock is ticking.

Posted by sntauri at 09/23/2009 @ 11:09am

It's not a clock, it's a calendar, and a very long one at that. The Serbs are still unhappy about losing the Battle of Kosovo in 1389; heck, the Israelis and the Palestinians argue with quotes from scripture dated BCE. The United States is a very old government, but the country and the people (and their disputes) are still young.

Posted by Mistral at 09/23/2009 @ 11:27am
but the "Magic Negro" label came from a LA Times reporter..hardly a right wing media...."---Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 09:56am

And was MOCKED by that editorial, not praised by it.

But again, if you REALLY believe that Rush and ditto-heads like HAPP, like to use "Magic"...aka "Magic Negro" (and the inherent derivative of that word)....to "mock a liberal"....you're naive.

If you

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 11:27am
BTW, Maasch, I might remind you that is the SAME Rush Limbaugh who told a black caller in the 70s...

"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back!"

...and to TODAY, still references Robert Byrd's membership in the KKK in the 1940s and acts like nobosy remembers his days as "Jeff Christie".

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 11:29am
poor Mask, so jealous that others are successful in a field he can only dream of being successful in...so he spends all his time listening to them, stewing, saving transcripts, and arguing with other anonymous interweb blog commenters about their authority and influence (two things they have far more of than Mask could ever hope for)...so sad...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 11:35am
In my next life, I want to be a Buffet.....sounds so humanitarian, tells the world his secretary pays a higher marginal rate than he does.....and laughing all the way to his multiple banks, esp. the one controlling the Black House!

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

Buffet's Big Bet On Goldman Has Reaped A Huge Payoff

* On Wednesday September 23, 2009, 12:23 pm EDT

It's 12 months later and Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is $3 billion richer.

One year ago today, on September 23, 2008, with the financial world still reeling from the collapse of Lehman Brothers just days before, Buffett stunned Wall Street with a massive vote of confidence for Goldman Sachs.

In a late-day news release, Goldman announced a private deal to sell Berkshire $5 billion of perpetual preferred stock. In effect, Berkshire was giving Goldman a massive loan. And you don't loan that kind of money to a firm you think could follow Lehman down the drain.

In that release, Buffett called Goldman "an exceptional institution" with an "unrivaled global franchise, a proven and deep management team and the intellectual and financial capital to continue its track record of outperformance."...

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 11:43am
In my next life, I want to be a Buffet.....sounds so humanitarian

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 11:43am

Remember that if a vegetarian eats vegetables, then what does a humanitarian eat? And then would you want to be be a buffet (all you can eat)?

Posted by Mistral at 09/23/2009 @ 12:01pm
maasch, hard at work again this morning?

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 11:12am

As always..

and you?

Hard working the drugs I see..

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 12:38pm
But Mask,

Rush bone comment was in the 70s, right?

so what? or is Byrd KKK a so what also?

Mask, you lose this one...

Rush, as I said, is many things, but racists isnt one of them...I am sure I could parse all of your utterings and come up with a peferct description a...( you fill in the blank).....

context, old sport, context matters.

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 12:44pm
ask him his source for that Andrea Dworkin "quote".....he won't have one.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 07:23am

In 1987 Dworkin published Intercourse, in which she extended her analysis from pornography to sexual intercourse itself, and argued that the sort of sexual subordination depicted in pornography was central to men's and women's experiences of heterosexual intercourse in a male supremacist society. In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform."

Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting (sometimes even falsely quoting) the book as supposedly claiming "all" heterosexual intercourse is rape, or more generally that the anatomical machinations of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. However, critics such as Cathy Young point out that numerous statements in the book, such as "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," are difficult to misinterpret.

Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument, stating in a later interview that "I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality" and suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: "Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin

I'd love to see the what kind of defense Mask attempts (if any). Somebody repost.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 12:48pm
Are the WHITE blue dog Demoncrats opposing ()bamacare racists???

I submit there are MORE BLACK racists than white...

Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/23/2009 @ 1:03pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 12:44pm

I'll ask for ONE standard, Maasch.

Either BOTH Byrd and Rush are forgiven ...or both guilty ad infinitum.

Pick one. But Rush and his friends keep mentioning Byrd in the KKK....we keep mentioning "Jeff Christie" and bones in noses.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 1:14pm
Former President Clinton asserted, "I don't believe that ALL the people who oppose him [Obama] on health care -- and all the conservatives -- are racists." Factually, it would be difficult to challenge Clinton's position that inserts an "ALL" inclusive statement. Therefore, what I will plainly say: Racism did not end the day America elected its' first African-American President. Undoubtedly, America's race relations has progressed over the last two hundred years. Is this a surprise? We should expect, if not demand, such forward diversity movement from a great Nation. With that said, I agree with Former President Carter's statement: "Many white people, " . . . believe that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." Do note, Carter did not say "all", but rather "many".

As a Federal employee in the current administration, I remain perplexed at the notion we must ignore racial injustice – just because we have a Black President. Why should we downplay it? Today, we can openly discuss gender, origin, and sexual orientation issues more comfortably than we can talk about race issues as it relates to "African-Americans. " How proud I am to see an African-American as President of the United States! I was also proud to be apart of the Clinton administration when "Ronald H. Brown" served as the U.S. Department of Commerce's first African-American Secretary. Pride aside, however, African-Americans suffered from discriminatory treatment then … just as they are suffering now. Black people must remain vigilant. We cannot simply pretend that race no longer matters because one brilliant Black man broke what had existed as an insurmountable barrier. The truth remains, in the way of analogy: for ever

Posted by coalition4change at 09/23/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 12:48pm

Larry...

1. I don't have YOU on Ignore....I have nothing to fear from you.

2. Why would I have to offer a defense, since it is IN your post.

"Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."

Dworkin is NOT saying "all sex is rape" (again back to Darin's urban legend)...is she?

3. If you respond to me, urmy will say you're begging for my attention....LOL

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 1:17pm
Continued---

The truth remains, in the way of analogy: for every Obama [extremely qualified black] that seeks to ascend into high ranking role within the federal sector, there exist countless "Sarah Palins " [less qualified whites ] who catapult to the top and usurp such critical public service roles.

As a people, we must follow our ancestors' road map to victory. We cannot permit one victory, no matter how large, to silence us on issues of racial equity for the masses. For, it is often during times of transition, that black people experience the harshest pangs of racial injustice. With regard to the Former President Clinton, like many others I joyfully watched him blow his sax on the Arsenio Hall show. Having served in the Clinton Administration, I also welcomed the town hall meetings that allowed employees to share their workforce views. However, I later learned of the policies (direct and indirect) that impaired the careers of so many Black Federal employees. Under Clinton's administration, "Professional Liability Insurance" (using taxpayer funds) was made available to managers who violated employees' civil rights.

In closing, I submit that we must look beyond political party, race, origin or gender of candidates/officials when deciding our allegiance. When evaluating qualified candidates we must look at the economic, social, and financial policies the messenger espouses. I would encourage those who are interested in obtaining further insight into the culture of the Federal workforce, to visit http://www.coalition4change.org/pubinterest.htm

Posted by coalition4change at 09/23/2009 @ 1:18pm
Continued---

The truth remains, in the way of analogy: for every Obama [extremely qualified black] that seeks to ascend into high ranking role within the federal sector, there exist countless "Sarah Palins " [less qualified whites ] who catapult to the top and usurp such critical public service roles.

As a people, we must follow our ancestors' road map to victory. We cannot permit one victory, no matter how large, to silence us on issues of racial equity for the masses. For, it is often during times of transition, that black people experience the harshest pangs of racial injustice. With regard to the Former President Clinton, like many others I joyfully watched him blow his sax on the Arsenio Hall show. Having served in the Clinton Administration, I also welcomed the town hall meetings that allowed employees to share their workforce views. However, I later learned of the policies (direct and indirect) that impaired the careers of so many Black Federal employees. Under Clinton's administration, "Professional Liability Insurance" (using taxpayer funds) was made available to managers who violated employees' civil rights.

In closing, I submit that we must look beyond political party, race, origin or gender of candidates/officials when deciding our allegiance. When evaluating qualified candidates we must look at the economic, social, and financial policies the messenger espouses. I would encourage those who are interested in obtaining further insight into the culture of the Federal workforce, to visit http://www.coalition4change.org/pubinterest.htm

Posted by coalition4change at 09/23/2009 @ 1:18pm
In that release, Buffett called Goldman "an exceptional institution" with an "unrivaled global franchise, a proven and deep management team and the intellectual and financial capital to continue its track record of outperformance."...

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 11:43am

With a little help from The Federal Reserve and Treasury of course......., but that is now part of their business model.

Goldman Sachs has a lifeline with Federal Reserve via derivatives and credit default swap trading platform ICE, which became a MEMBER of the Federal Reserve in March 2009. ICE is not regulated by SEC or Treasury, but rather by Federal Reserve. These are the characters that are selling our Treasuries and underwriting the credit default swaps that "insure" them. Foreign Banks such as Barclays, Credit Suisse, UBS join the Federal Reserve via ICE membership. Yikes!!

This is pathetic. Privitization of Profit, Socialization of Loss.

Obama is doing nothing on regulation that I can see.

Welcome to the New World Order.

Buffet is BS and a profiteer at taxpayer expense.

Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2009 @ 1:20pm
Dr. Lacewell explictitly faulted President Clinton as racist because he didn't treat Lani Guinier differently because of her race. This is the exact opposit of the definition of racism that I was taught in public school in the '70s. How can you not see that as an Orwellian manipulation of language?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 10:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

Darin....Minnesota just about leads the pack on lack of racism, unless of course you want to consider Swedes and Norweigians as distinct races.

Interacial dating was seen and accepted in Minnesota long before it was in the rest of the nation (in Minneapolis and St. Paul). Many blacks came to Minnesota because of its liberal welfare system, and social tolerance.

Your early understanding is equality for all. Affirmative action, however, changed that. Special treatment is now the arbiter of whether there is racism or not. This will take years to unwind. It is human nature not to relinquish a social and economic advantage once obtained or conferred.

Professor Lacewell is in many respects an anachronism, and may just be a racist herself.

Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2009 @ 1:35pm
Are you kidding me?... am I really reading this shit!?!? Please tell me I'm wrong, but is there actually a conversation going on about whether Rush Limbaugh is a racist?

That's like trying to argue that his HDL is in balance with his LDL and he's not going to die someday of eating himself to death...

Posted by ADHD at 09/23/2009 @ 1:36pm
Of course Dworkin called heterosexual sex rape. The fact that she denies the clear meaning of her statements just shows how dishonest she is.

<Some critics, such as Gene Healy and Cathy Young claimed that they found Dworkin's explanation hard to square with her frequent willingness to criticize ordinary heterosexual practices as violent or coercive. Young went on to claim that, given Dworkin's expressed views, arguments over whether Dworkin actually said that heterosexual intercourse is rape can be dismissed as "quibbling">

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse_(book)

A reading of the quotation from her book intercourse (while to foul in my view to post), provides an obvious conclusion to anyone of reasonable intelligence that she makes precisely that conclusion despite her denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse_(book)

And I'm sure in typical Maskian fashion, he will attempt to strain credulity as he defends Dworkin simply because she is not a conservative.

It will truly be that hell has frozen over when Mask actually entertains to seriously condemn a liberal member of the "intelligentsia" or a liberal politician.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 1:58pm
'Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women' -- Andrea Dworkin

CONTEXT:

'New reproductive technologies have changed and will continue to change the nature of the world. Intercourse is not necessary to existence anymore. Existence does not depend on female compliance, nor on the violation of female boundaries, nor on lesser female privacy, nor on the physical occupation of the female body. But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the fucking. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women; but that contempt can turn gothic and express itself in many sexual and sadistic practices that eschew intercourse per se. Any violation of a woman's body can become sex for men; this is the essential truth of pornography. So freedom from intercourse, or a social structure that reflects the low value of intercourse in women's sexual pleasure, or intercourse becoming one sex act among many entered into by (hypothetical) equals as part of other, deeper, longer, perhaps more sensual lovemaking, or an end to women's inferior status because we need not be forced to reproduce...' -- Andrea Dworkin -- Intercourse (New York: The free Press, 1987), 128-143.

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2009 @ 2:00pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 12:44pm I'll ask for ONE standard, Maasch. Either BOTH Byrd and Rush are forgiven ...or both guilty ad infinitum. Pick one. But Rush and his friends keep mentioning Byrd in the KKK....we keep mentioning "Jeff Christie" and bones in noses. Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 1:14pm | ignore this person |

--"we" don't...you do. because you're obsessed with the right-wing media.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 12:44pm

I'll ask for ONE standard, Maasch.

Either BOTH Byrd and Rush are forgiven ...or both guilty ad infinitum.

Pick one. But Rush and his friends keep mentioning Byrd in the KKK....we keep mentioning "Jeff Christie" and bones in noses.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 1:14pm |

As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to forgive either of them for...they have done nothing to me as a person, Byrd has caused greater damage to black people by spending a good part of his life in the KKK as an officer or whatever they call their higharchey...nuts balls for sure...but they actualy lynched, whipped and murdered people..

Rush apparentlycalled a person a name, I don't know if it is true or not, but from what I hear of him, he is the opposite of a racists,ask Bo Snerdly or whatever his name is....I have had some black people call me a name that is worse than that...I have heard black people call other black people names worse than that.

What I would like to hear is how Rush used those words in context, since the left is FAMOUS for parsing words out of context for people with whom they disagree. MOVEON.ORG has written the book on it.

but I can think of many things the KKK and therefore, its members have done to the life and death of black people...especially when Byrd was in the KKK during the 50s and 60s.

as far as Rush and his name calling....I don't think it compares...any more than Michael Savages rants compared to terrorists murderers killing Israeli children, and both get banned from the UK..

not everything is equilalent, in particular Limbaugh and Byrd.

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 2:56pm
Mask has no intention of "forgiving" Rush or any right-wing media personality...doing so would take away 99% of his posting content here...heheh

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 3:03pm
It will truly be that hell has frozen over when Mask actually entertains to seriously condemn a liberal member of the "intelligentsia" or a liberal politician.----Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 1:58pm

Took me off Ignore, huh? Or was I ever really on it?

BTW, ask some of our pure progressives what I've said about Ralph Nader?

And your sources STILL are the opinions of others and there is STILL no quote from Dworkin saying "all sex is rape"...which was Darin's contention.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 2:56pm

So "verbal racism" is "not that bad"?

BTW, there is no "context"....read the story at www.snopes.com if you like.

Rush even admits "feeling guilty" about it...which is still less than the apologies and recanting that Byrd has done for 50 years, yet still gets tarred as a "Klan member" by ditto-heads AND Rush.

And again, if Byrd's past is to be held over him forever....so is "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back"....fair's fair.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 3:33pm
'Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women' -- Andrea Dworkin

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2009 @ 2:00pm

Not quite the same thing as saying "Dworkin called heterosexual sex rape" is it?

Posted by Mistral at 09/23/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by Mistral at 09/23/2009 @ 3:48pm

Nope...and again, interesting. Dworkins speaking in opposition to porn.

Something I'd THNK right-wingers would oppose as well?!???!?!

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 3:56pm
'Not quite the same thing as saying "Dworkin called heterosexual sex rape" is it?' -- Mistral

Well, maybe not the same words, but if a man is expressing contempt for a woman by having sex with her, and presumably is enjoying the act, then what else would you call it?

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2009 @ 4:00pm
......what does a humanitarian eat? And then would you want to be be a buffet (all you can eat)?

Posted by Mistral at 09/23/2009 @ 12:01pm

La Misarables (sp)?

Life is a buffet.......at least still, here in the good, middle-aged US of A.

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 4:02pm
if you REALLY believe...HAPP, like to use "Magic"...aka "Magic Negro" (and the inherent derivative of that word)....to "mock a liberal"....you're naive.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 11:27am

Here's a small star....you're right!

First and foremost, I am mocking The Annointed One himself. I never bought into his `intelligence' and have stayed consistent on this for almost 2 years.

IMO, all presidential candidates should be required to release all their academic transcripts along with entry scores like the SAT and IQ if available.

We demand of them financial information which is far more prying. As a mature adult (say over 35 which is the min. age to run as POTUS), I would be far, far HAPPIER & willing to give out my SAT (and GMAT) scores and transcripts of courses and grading than I would of my financial life. In real life, it's what one has done that rates respect....as we all know Gates & Dell never finished college. That Magic closely guarded his scores was a huge tipoff!

I am actually being gentle w/BHO today by still rewarding his him the nic Magic. Otherwise, I may start calling him DumbMoFuNoOne or the Most Embarrassing Black Alive!

53% of Americans have been had and the only ones with some excuse, are the under-30s. What's yours? Thank God Hillary is not in the WH!!!!!

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 4:14pm
from the wapo, today:

"As evidence of the link between health care and racial attitudes, we analyzed survey data gathered in late 2008. The survey asked people whether they favored a government run health insurance plan, a system like we have now, or something in between. It also asked four questions about how people feel about blacks.

Taken together the four items form a measure of what scholars call racial resentment. We find an extraordinarily strong correlation between racial resentment of blacks and opposition to health care reform.

Among whites with above average racial resentment, only 19 percent favored fundamental health care reforms and 57 percent favored the present system. Among those who have below average racial resentment, more than twice as many (45 percent) favored government run health care and less than half as many (25 percent) favored the status quo.

No such relationship between racial attitudes and opinions on health care existed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton effort."

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 4:22pm
Life is a buffet.......at least still, here in the good, middle-aged US of A. Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person |

or as Carlin puts it, 'the world is revolving, neon buffet.'

...

and 'when you're born, you get a ticket to the freak show. when you're born in the u.s., you get a front row seat.'

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 4:28pm
So "verbal racism" is "not that bad"? BTW, there is no "context"....read the story at www.snopes.com if you like. Rush even admits "feeling guilty" about it...which is still less than the apologies and recanting that Byrd has done for 50 years, yet still gets tarred as a "Klan member" by ditto-heads AND Rush. And again, if Byrd's past is to be held over him forever....so is "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back"....fair's fair. Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person |

--told ya Mask has zero intention of "forgiving" Rush...heheh...it'll be a cold day in hell before Mask stops obsessing with the right-wing media. They OWN HIM!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 4:30pm
I dunno, Mask,

A comment by Rush that he regrets is the same as a clan member?

Free speech name calling verses a hate group that actually murdered people...

I think you are losing your edge...

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 4:54pm
I dunno, Mask, A comment by Rush that he regrets is the same as a clan member? Free speech name calling verses a hate group that actually murdered people... I think you are losing your edge... Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--fair point...and why would byrd want to/need to apologize so profusely and so often, as Mask has claimed he has?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 5:09pm
just as it is difficult to know how racism feels for a white person, Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

I'm also white. Cops profile us too... Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 11:10am

Who does...:)

No one knows what it's like

To be the bad man

To be the sad man

Behind blue eyes

No one knows what it's like

To be hated

To be fated

To telling only lies

But my dreams

They aren't as empty

As my conscience seems to be

I have hours, only lonely

My love is vengeance

That's never free

No one knows what it's like

To feel these feelings

Like I do

And I blame you

No one bites back as hard

On their anger

None of my pain and woe

Can show through

But my dreams

They aren't as empty

As my conscience seems to be

I have hours, only lonely

My love is vengeance

That's never free

When my fist clenches, crack it open

Before I use it and lose my cool

When I smile, tell me some bad news

Before I laugh and act like a fool

If I swallow anything evil

Put your finger down my throat

If I shiver, please give me a blanket

Keep me warm, let me wear your coat

No one knows what it's like

To be the bad man

To be the sad man

Behind blue eyes

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2009 @ 5:25pm
I submitted comments to this piece very early this morning but someone deleted it. Did anyone see it before it was deleted?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/23/2009 @ 5:50pm
'Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women' -- Andrea Dworkin Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2009 @ 2:00pm Not quite the same thing as saying "Dworkin called heterosexual sex rape" is it? Posted by Mistral at 09/23/2009 @ 3:48pm

Would it not be safe to say that anyone that equates men feelings of violence towards women via the act of intercourse, first, clearly has not experienced intercourse with a women while being a men...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2009 @ 5:51pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2009 @ 5:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

the who can also tell us that no one knows what it's like, to be batman...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 6:03pm
No such relationship between racial attitudes and opinions on health care existed in the mid-1990s during the Clinton effort."

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 4:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Darla, how did 'wapo' determine that? Did they do a similar survey when HillaryCare failed?

Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2009 @ 6:24pm
the who can also tell us that no one knows what it's like, to be batman... Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 6:03pm

because after all they are secretly caped cruise raiders?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2009 @ 6:30pm
What a load of crap. In fact, the whole discussion on race is nothing but bullshit. Ask governor Paterson of New York. He's hollering that the president's request for him to step down and not run for re-election is because he is black. But he blames it on the white half of Barack Obama, not the black half.

Nobody is surprised by some of the racist opposition to Obama's policies. In fact, it was probably to be expected. In a country of 300 million people, with freedom of the press and speech, you'll get plenty of idiotic whites who hate blacks and moronic blacks who hate whites spewing their garbage when hearings are held on a controversial issue.

And of course when you get a white person like President Carter to offer his slant on it, it will be guaranteed front page coverage in all the media and the first item on every cable channel. I would be interested in Carter's response if he was asked whether he also believes that anyone who criticizes Israel does so because they hate Jews.

Everyone in this country is a racist. Whether they are white, black, yellow or whatever. Everyone discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, physical appearance, and anything else that differentiates them from the person standing next to them. It's always been like that and always will be.

So maybe all you racists will do us a favor and stop whining about how racist everybody but you is.

Posted by bean22 at 09/23/2009 @ 6:59pm
The debate on true healthcare reform cannot happen without this nation confronting racism, because true healthcare reform would basically be a redistribution of wealth. A more accurate word than redistribution would be a "return" of wealth, since it would be fairly returned to the communities that created that wealth. Those communities would include Indigenous people, people of African heritage, and poor and working-class whites, just to name a few.

Yes, Obama is being targeted with racism when he gets depicted in those horrible images shown at those demonstrations. But the bigger issue is the institutionalized racism we have in our country (along with institutionalized sexism and classism), and one way it is institutionalized is through our current healthcare system. So the issue is not who is and isn't racist, or a bunch of white liberals being surprised by the racism directed at Obama. The issue is that racism is being used to divert from the bigger issue of institutionalized racism. In a strange twist, it is racist (and classist) to limit the discussion of racism only to how President Obama is being targeted.

I respect Obama but I don't agree that what he is proposing is actually much in the way of reform or change. I don't think it will do more than make the insurance companies even richer, rather than return wealth to the communities that created that wealth.

Posted by nicjv at 09/23/2009 @ 7:28pm
the who can also tell us that no one knows what it's like, to be batman... Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 6:03pm because after all they are secretly caped cruise raiders? Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2009 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--pete townsend likes to cruise certain things...but they aren't of age

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 7:39pm
.....true healthcare reform would basically be a redistribution of wealth. A more accurate word than redistribution would be a "return" of wealth, since it would be fairly returned to the communities that created that wealth. Those communities would include Indigenous people, people of African heritage, and poor and working-class whites, just to name a few.

Posted by nicjv at 09/23/2009 @ 7:28pm

How does the southside of Chicago with the dozens of public housing towers where a large number of the residents don't work, and teems with teen mothers create wealth? or Harlem?

Indian reservations of any size, at least know to be nice to tourists and are good at selling arts & craft (often made in China)...what do you think non-blacks get by driving through the black `wealth-producing' areas like that in Chicago or SW Detroit?

Total deusion....you must think The Great Society was rigged to suck wealth out of the black wealthy!

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 9:04pm
Ralf knows best? Maybe not, but he's outspoken ang afraid of nothing.

----------

Ralf Nader on Obama Time Magazine

Q. What's your take on President Obama thus far? A. Weak. Waffling, wavering, ambiguous and overwhelmingly concessionary.

Posted by HelenDAO at 09/23/2009 @ 9:25pm
Like I said, truly Orwelian. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 06:32am | +++

Orwell reported spinning in grave.

{He also asks that people spell his name correctly.}

Posted by Citizen54 at 09/23/2009 @ 9:27pm
you know, in real democracies, when one party takes the election, normally people wait a couple years to give the winners a chance to, you know, do what they were elected to do.

but here in the good ol' usa, the winners have to make CONCESSIONS, and "reach across the aisle"....and be 'bipartisan'. well, that's bullshit. unless, of course, you're a republican, then you can do whatever you want, and have no remorse (see: reagan, bush)

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:09pm
you know, in real democracies, when one party takes the election, normally people wait a couple years to give the winners a chance to, you know, do what they were elected to do. but here in the good ol' usa, the winners have to make CONCESSIONS, and "reach across the aisle"....and be 'bipartisan'. well, that's bullshit. unless, of course, you're a republican, then you can do whatever you want, and have no remorse (see: reagan, bush) Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--no one's making Obama do anything...he wants to win another election, so he's unwilling to act boldly.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 10:40pm
you know, in real democracies,

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:09pm

Oh? You mean REAL democracies. Some mythical utopia that can never exist. Kinda like REAL communism.

Do the words, "Constitutional Republic" mean anything to you?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/24/2009 @ 06:08am
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/23/2009 @ 4:54pm

Fine, Maasch....I guess as long as it's "one comment"....Rush is "okay" as your de facto Party leader.

Glad to know the standard.

Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 07:15am
you know, in real democracies, when one party takes the election, normally people wait a couple years to give the winners a chance to, you know, do what they were elected to do.

but here in the good ol' usa, the winners have to make CONCESSIONS, and "reach across the aisle"....and be 'bipartisan'. well, that's bullshit.

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:09pm

No, it isn't. Our country isn't governed by the Democratic Party, nor has it ever been governed by the GOP. It is governed by one President, 100 Senators, and 435 Congressmen.

Each of which has a state and a district he SHOULD answer to before he takes into consideration some party apparatus.

Hard as this might be to accept, it isn't the Republicans who are holding things up. We really, REALLY don't have the numbers to do this. The sticking points are Democrats in districts or states that could easily be replaced by their constituents.

Things are being held up because Senators and Congressmen actually do track the ration of letters, emails, and phone calls "for" and "against" any given issue.

This is as it should be. And it is not bullshit.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/24/2009 @ 07:26am
you know, in real democracies, when one party takes the election, normally people wait a couple years to give the winners a chance to, you know, do what they were elected to do.

but here in the good ol' usa, the winners have to make CONCESSIONS, and "reach across the aisle"....and be 'bipartisan'. well, that's bullshit.

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:09pm

No, it isn't. Our country isn't governed by the Democratic Party, nor has it ever been governed by the GOP. It is governed by one President, 100 Senators, and 435 Congressmen.

Each of which has a state and a district he SHOULD answer to before he takes into consideration some party apparatus.

Hard as this might be to accept, it isn't the Republicans who are holding things up. We really, REALLY don't have the numbers to do this. The sticking points are Democrats in districts or states that could easily be replaced by their constituents.

Things are being held up because Senators and Congressmen actually do track the ration of letters, emails, and phone calls "for" and "against" any given issue.

This is as it should be. And it is not bullshit.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/24/2009 @ 07:26am
you know, in real democracies, when one party takes the election, normally people wait a couple years to give the winners a chance to, you know, do what they were elected to do.

but here in the good ol' usa, the winners have to make CONCESSIONS, and "reach across the aisle"....and be 'bipartisan'. well, that's bullshit.

Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:09pm

No, it isn't. Our country isn't governed by the Democratic Party, nor has it ever been governed by the GOP. It is governed by one President, 100 Senators, and 435 Congressmen.

Each of which has a state and a district he SHOULD answer to before he takes into consideration some party apparatus.

Hard as this might be to accept, it isn't the Republicans who are holding things up. We really, REALLY don't have the numbers to do this. The sticking points are Democrats in districts or states that could easily be replaced by their constituents.

Things are being held up because Senators and Congressmen actually do track the ration of letters, emails, and phone calls "for" and "against" any given issue.

This is as it should be. And it is not bullshit.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/24/2009 @ 07:26am
Or to put it another day, I would have loved to have been a Congressman in the room back when Obama first met with them and contemptuously said, "Well, I won."

Pretty early for a guy to have his first "I'm the Decider" moment, but that is besides the point.

I would've responded to his observation by pointing out that everyone else in the room had won their elections as well. And that they were all obligated to pursue the policies and ideology that got them elected, just as Obama is.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/24/2009 @ 07:31am
Or to put it another day, I would have loved to have been a Congressman in the room back when Obama first met with them and contemptuously said, "Well, I won."

Pretty early for a guy to have his first "I'm the Decider" moment, but that is besides the point.

I would've responded to his observation by pointing out that everyone else in the room had won their elections as well. And that they were all obligated to pursue the policies and ideology that got them elected, just as Obama is.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/24/2009 @ 07:31am
Or to put it another day, I would have loved to have been a Congressman in the room back when Obama first met with them and contemptuously said, "Well, I won."

Pretty early for a guy to have his first "I'm the Decider" moment, but that is besides the point.

I would've responded to his observation by pointing out that everyone else in the room had won their elections as well. And that they were all obligated to pursue the policies and ideology that got them elected, just as Obama is.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/24/2009 @ 07:31am
It begins...

the Traitors Strike Back

Feds probe US Census worker hanging in Kentucky

http://tinyurl.com/y8aklhj

Will we hear ANYTHING from the neo-cons about the attack on a US citizen from a Tea Party Sympathizer?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2009 @ 08:11am
Like I said, truly Orwelian.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/23/2009 @ 06:32am |

You should know from Orwellian.

Darla is pretty close on her comment...the cons LOST the election, SOUNDLY across the country, and they cannot handle it. Rather than "get behind " their president, which they screamed at us poor "lefties" for 8 YEARS, they cry and moan and complain about mythical fears whipped up by celebrities and MSM bloviators.

In other words, they are exactly what they whined and cried about for 8 years. Except, THEY have their death camps...in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had their Totalitarian 8 years, federal wiretaps, rounding up and detention of US citizens. They had federal tax dollars being SQUANDERED around the world, with zero oversight. They had the feds taking over banks.

What changed? A Black President.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2009 @ 08:18am
--pete townsend likes to cruise certain things...but they aren't of age Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 7:39pm

then you've been amply warned...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 08:32am
No, Melissa, Clinton's efforts at National Health Care were effectively shut down by the efforts of the thinking and common sensical.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/24/2009 @ 08:33am
Well, maybe not the same words, but if a man is expressing contempt for a woman by having sex with her, and presumably is enjoying the act, then what else would you call it?

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2009 @ 4:00pm

Life is a buffet.......at least still, here in the good, middle-aged US of A.

Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 4:02pm

HonestLiberal: The point is, I guess, that Dworkin uses a great fog of words, and doesn't say much of anything. You can read into it what you want. I hope we can agree that what she says is repellent, but slippery, so there's always a good argument to be made that "she really didn't say that" or "she said that, but what she meant was" or "Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument."

Happy: Life is not a buffet, old chum, life is a cabaret.

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 08:37am
.the cons LOST the election, SOUNDLY across the country, and they cannot handle it.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2009 @ 08:18am

It certainly seems that they did. On the other hand, even with a majority in the House, a filibuster-proof Senate, and the Presidency the Democrats still have no accomplishments to speak of (except continuing bailouts of fat-cats, foreign wars and other policies of the previous administration), so can you really say that the Democrats, much less the liberals, won the election?

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 08:44am
so can you really say that the Democrats, much less the liberals, won the election?---Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 08:44am

Can you really say conservatism is "winning"????

Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 09:06am
"I agree with Clinton that the opposition to President Obama's plan is about health care reform, not about race."

the opposition is about ideology. most white "racists" (using that term in quotes since i'm not precisely sure what it means on a person per person basis) tend to share a certain set of ideological views that in themselves have only tangential connection to ethnic issues. they tend to be american anarcho-cristo-satano-aynrando "conservatives" (that goes in quotes because i personally find nothing much "conservative" about their ideas beyond knee-jerk terror at anything resembling progress).

and in the fine tradition of the john birch society, american obverse democratic fascism includes fear and loathing of those who threaten "our" (that goes into quotes for obvious reasons) way of life...

well...the last couple of elections show that these angry, mean spirited luddites are increasingly in the minority, which will make them increasingly desperate and prone to threatening violence.

racist? sure, i guess, but in this case i really think "racism" is more just the yummy fudge icing on the big, ugly, yummy tasting, poison laced ideological cake of the american right...

Posted by dexter666 at 09/24/2009 @ 09:32am
angry, mean spirited luddites

Posted by dexter666 at 09/24/2009 @ 09:32am

Wouldn't that be Al Gore and his groupies? Shouldn't Al Gore have a bumper sticker like Woody Guthrie:

"This Fascist Kills Machines"

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 09:42am
Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 09:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

LOL!!!!

yeah, luddites and lunkheads on the left for sure. if i'd have been a little older in the 60's and 70's, i might have become so disgused with the loopy brave new worlder (and sometimes scarily violent) left...

i might have voted republican for 2-3 decades too...

might have, except i actually make efforts to cut through ALL propaganda and continually inform myself, re-examine assumptions based on external evidence, question sources...you know, think critically.

scientific method - is great!

but al gore, despite his reverend lovejoy lisp, has been pretty spot-on in terms of his message and his science in regard to the environment.

as a progressive conservative i find the reactionary, anti-intellectual trainwreck of an ideology and consensus that passes for "conservatism" in this country to be a sick joke and insult to the intelligence of all, including REAL conservatives such as myself, a hysterical, fantasy based, change fearing monstrosity of luddite excuse making and dangerous unscientific irresponsibility.

i'll wait a little longer while this poisonous stupidity fades away before considering joining the republican party, though, and permeating it with my own form of compassionate, rational satanism, though...lol...

Posted by dexter666 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:15am
Will we hear ANYTHING from the neo-cons about the attack on a US citizen from a Tea Party Sympathizer?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2009 @ 08:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

"Mister, we-uns hain't no call to be ashamed of ourselves, nor of ary thing we do. We're poor; but we don't ax no favors. We stay 'way up hyar in these coves, and mind our own business. When a stranger comes along, he's welcome to the best we've got, such as t'is; but if he imposes on us, he gits his medicine purty damned quick!"

Our Southern Highlanders by Horace Kephart - Excerpt Outing Publishing Company, 1913)

Posted by OneVote at 09/24/2009 @ 10:16am
It begins...

the Traitors Strike Back

Feds probe US Census worker hanging in Kentucky

http://tinyurl.com/y8aklhj

Will we hear ANYTHING from the neo-cons about the attack on a US citizen from a Tea Party Sympathizer?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2009 @ 08:11am

It's not nice to lie. There is no mention of any suspicion of Tea Party sympathizers.

What is more likely according to police was the gentleman encountering drug dealers.

And whoever did it deserves the death penalty.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 10:16am
so can you really say that the Democrats, much less the liberals, won the election?

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 08:44am

Michael Barrone this issue with one quote addressing the assymetry of our party politics:

There are more conservatives than Republicans.

There are more Democrats than Liberal.

Every wonder why the Rep VP is always much more conservative than the Republican Presidential nominee and the Dem VP is always much more conservative than the Democrat Presidential nominee?

McCain & Palin; Bush & Cheney; Dole & I forget; Bush & Quayle

Obama & Biden; Kerry & Edwards; Gore & Lieberman; Clinton & Gore; Dukakis & Benston;

1984 may be the last exception. Reagan was more conservative than Bush and I don't know who is more conservative between Mondale and Ferraro

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/24/2009 @ 11:51am
It was Dole and Jack Kemp.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/24/2009 @ 11:53am
--pete townsend likes to cruise certain things...but they aren't of age Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 7:39pm

then you've been amply warned...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 08:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

--I'm 30, too old for his tastes...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/24/2009 @ 12:01pm
so can you really say that the Democrats, much less the liberals, won the election?---Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 08:44am

Can you really say conservatism is "winning"????

Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 09:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

--obama has no plans to put the insurance companies out of business

Posted by urmygyro at 09/24/2009 @ 12:03pm
-obama has no plans to put the insurance companies out of business

Posted by urmygyro at 09/24/2009 @ 12:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

who knows what his plans are...lol...

i think he has decided to let all the sound and fury play itself out for as long as possible.

i think in his heart of hearts he would love to see that murderous, parasitic pack of criminals forced to make an honest living, and that a well run public option would indeed be coffin nail number one for them...

but i aim to misbehave if i am forced by ANYONE to further enrich those despicable murderous parasites by doing business with them...

BUT FOR...the buzillions they have spent over the last four decades to ensure their parasitic profits...how many millions would have suffered less, would have lived longer, happier, more productive lives?

private health insurance with no public option is evil. i understand that too vigorous an effort to eliminate vice creates more vice, but i cannot abide the wickedness of that blood sucking pack of vampires.

Posted by dexter666 at 09/24/2009 @ 12:19pm
Happy says:

"How does the southside of Chicago with the dozens of public housing towers where a large number of the residents don't work, and teems with teen mothers create wealth? or Harlem?

Indian reservations of any size, at least know to be nice to tourists and are good at selling arts & craft (often made in China)...what do you think non-blacks get by driving through the black `wealth-producing' areas like that in Chicago or SW Detroit?"

My Dearest Happy,

I guess history for you only goes back as far as yesterday.

How did a relatively young country like ours become so rich, so fast? It got that way partly through stealing land from the Indigenous people who lived here and through the enormous wealth produced and stolen from African slaves. And from your description of the current state of some Indigenous and African-heritage communities, it obvious what the effects of that robbery has had on those populations. They have not yet recovered, nor will they until those resources are returned partly in the form of real healthcare reform.

Our country has also gotten its wealth from each of us every day. What you get paid at your job is a mere fraction of the value you produce. (Unless you're a big dog on Wall Street, where the reverse seems to happen on a daily basis. The big dogs get paid big money for creating products that eventually prove to be of zer0-value. Why are you not arguing with them?)

Happy, you're not so happy are you? But wait, maybe ignorance really is bliss. Lucky you.

I wish I could turn a blind eye on history and the plight of populations other than my own. But I also know that our current system (healthcare and more) is not built on integrity, and that anything that lacks a solid foundation is bound to collapse sooner or later.

Posted by nicjv at 09/24/2009 @ 12:37pm
"What we need, is a voluntary, open ended, free spirited program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep f@*#ing everybody else 'till we're all the same color." Senator Jay Billington Bullworth 1998

Posted by quinndiesel at 09/24/2009 @ 12:45pm
i think he has decided to let all the sound and fury play itself out for as long as possible.

Posted by dexter666 at 09/24/2009 @ 12:19pm

It certainly is a tale "full of sound and fury" but who is telling it?

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 12:47pm
'till we're all the same color

Posted by quinndiesel at 09/24/2009 @ 12:45pm

Then we will have peace, as they do in Northern Ireland, Korea and Sri Lanka

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 12:49pm
I wish I could turn a blind eye on history and the plight of populations other than my own.

Posted by nicjv at 09/24/2009 @ 12:37pm

But you have! The illegal theft of Constantinople from the Greeks, the occupation of Indian (Aksai Chin, not New Mexico) lands by the Chinese, and don't get me started on what happened in 1066 and all that.

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 12:57pm
I find the kind of pretzel logic we go through to deny the obvious fascinating. What's obvious? That many of the most visible protestors out there right now are racists. From my own personal experience, the majority of my right wing relatives and friends (and I have a lot of those) (a) can't stand the fact that a black is in office (b) can't logically articulate a single element of what the debate is actually about. "He's proposing death panels!" "He's going to socialize my Medicare!" "He's going to force abortions on Republicans!" There's no actual thought here, just visceral hatred of the "other". Yet another example of the sad deterioration of the Republican party via the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter/Fox fueled poisoning of conservatism into political hate speech in the service of the wealthy. Is it any surprise that that hate speech is radicalizing, when its core "truths" are lies, and have nothing to do with "freedom", "Christianity","Our Founding Fathers", "original intent", "free markets" or "equality"?

Quite frankly, I think its going to back fire on the current "conservatives" the same way the Yippees/Hippies created a backlash against the left in the 1960's and 1970's. My more apolitical "normal" aquaintances (lots of those as well) are disgusted. And the lefties are fightin' mad.

Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/24/2009 @ 1:01pm
Mistral, it was a quote from a movie. Levity if you will. You frakking idiot.

Posted by quinndiesel at 09/24/2009 @ 1:05pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 10:16am

I have been around drug dealers, I have never met one that would write "fed" on a victim.

Funny how you can link quotes from the 1930's to Obamas plans for health reform and get to "Obama death panels" but you miss the connection between "Take back our country" and a dead man with "fed" written on his corpse.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2009 @ 1:14pm
Can you really say conservatism is "winning"????

Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 09:06am

Nope...and they statrted losing with Bush...the first one...and as we conservatives have said ad nauseum...

Bush was no conservative.....both of them.

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/24/2009 @ 1:30pm
"And again, if Byrd's past is to be held over him forever....so is 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back'....fair's fair." Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 3:33pm

The difference, Mask, is that Byrd certainly seems to have put aside the racism of his long ago past. Limbaugh's hardened his racism. I have to wonder if his dismissal by ESPN after his thinly veiled racist shot at Donovan McNabb had some hand in exacerbating his racism. As for Maasch and Happy claiming that Limbaugh is anything but a raving racist, that's pretty much a load of delusional nonsense. And you're absolutely right that Happy has shown himself to be a racist, which is no doubt why he insists that Limbaugh's not one.

"Bush was no conservative.....both of them." Posted by YourJomamma at 09/24/2009 @ 1:30pm

Sorry, Maasch, but they're both conservatives, as the term is now defined by conservatives. Especially your boy W. Try as you might to disown these clowns, conservatives supported them both, and in W's case, you fully supported him.

Posted by jmusolino at 09/24/2009 @ 2:08pm
Mistral, it was a quote from a movie. Levity if you will. You frakking idiot.

Posted by quinndiesel at 09/24/2009 @ 1:05pm

Oh, no offense, I was just pointing out that even if we were all the same color there'd still be plenty of opportunity for bloodshed.

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

well, not saying there's not a little wishful thinking on my part...

generally obama has ultimately shown my wishful thinking has been fairly accurate...so far...

buti would rather see this take the rest of his first term - and get it right with a public option - than rush through some evil, wasteful crap that forces me to enrich the parasitic murderers that are largely the source of the problem...

and damn the tritorous democrat insurance company STOOGES who insist upon treasonously supporting their big parasite donors than the people they were elected to represent. time to light a fire under their also-parasitic posteriors come primary time...

those who choose to do the bidding of parasites are parasites and the universe will not tolerate their presence for ever...

Posted by dexter666 at 09/24/2009 @ 2:30pm
Soliloquy, Macbeth, Act V, Scene 4.

Posted by Mistral at 09/24/2009 @ 2:37pm
Oh, and to those who contend that I don't know what the word, "Orwellian" means...

I claimed that Dr. Lacewell's condemning Pres Clinton as racist for not treating Lani Guinier differently BECAUSE of the color of her skin was Orwellian.

It used to be that treating someone differently because of the color of her skin was racism. Now NOT treating someone differently becuase of the color of her skin is racism.

Who was it that wrote:

Four legs good; two legs bad

only to be replace by

Four legs good; two legs better

Isn't the redefining of good and bad to be the opposite of what it used to be "Orwellian"?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/24/2009 @ 2:51pm
How did a relatively young country like ours become so rich, so fast? It got that way partly through stealing land from the Indigenous people who lived here and through the enormous wealth produced and stolen from African slaves.

Posted by nicjv at 09/24/2009 @ 12:37pm

It got rich through innovation. This country's wealth in 1865 might have been... I don't know $100 billion

Today it is closer to $100 trillion.

99.9% of today's wealth was created after slavery was Constitutionally abolished. But our incredible wealth was due to slavery?

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/24/2009 @ 2:56pm
I suppose that had slavery been abolished in 1485 (meaning no African slaves brought to North America) it would be the Continent of Africa that would be worth $100 trillion and North America would still be worth $100 billion.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/24/2009 @ 2:59pm
--pete townsend likes to cruise certain things...but they aren't of age Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 7:39pm

then you've been amply warned... Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 08:32am

--I'm 30, too old for his tastes... Posted by urmygyro at 09/24/2009 @ 12:01pm

I was speaking of your taste.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2009 @ 10:57pm
I get sick of all the talk about left and right. There has not been a true right in this country since Goldwater passed. Right is conservative, not the pseudo radicalism that is presently passing as right, that calls everything that does not agree with it, left. I consider myself right of center, being an old codger but cannot identify with this radical garbage that calls itself right these days, so I guess that makes me a leftist? Pshaw! The Bush era was a bunch of raiding buccaneers to call them right is totally raucous and slanderous.

Posted by bldavenport at 09/25/2009 @ 03:28am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)
Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)
D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)
Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)
Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)
Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)
Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)
Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)
Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)
Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

I'm Not a Racist...I'm a Democrat.

posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 09/22/2009 @ 9:55pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

I'm Not a Racist...I'm a Democrat.

posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 09/22/2009 @ 9:55pm

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!