Will a Racial Divide Swallow Obama?

On Sunday I went to the Prudential Center in Newark to hear President Obama make the case for Governor Jon Corzine's reelection here in New Jersey. Already a strong supporter of Governor Corzine I wasn't going to be convinced. And I wasn't particularly excited about standing in a long line, on a chilly afternoon to listen to two men I've heard speak dozens of times. But I was determined to go. One year ago I'd been in Newark to hear candidate Obama make his closing arguments, and I wanted to check out what an Obama rally looks like one year later.

Some elements of the atmosphere were familiar: insanely long lines, intense police presence, surprisingly jovial mood despite the chill. One thing was noticeably and distressingly different: the crowd waiting to see President Obama in Newark on Sunday was much less diverse than the crowd that greeted him in the waning days of the 2008 election. By my estimation the supporters in Newark yesterday were not exclusively, but certainly predominately, African American.

The event mirrors recent trends in the polls. Presidential job approval polls by Gallup have tracked two consistent trends in President Obama's ratings: overall decline and a widening racial gap between black and white Americans.

As a public opinion researcher, I am not surprised by this racial gap. Political science has convincingly and repeatedly found a wide and persistent gulf between the political attitudes of white and black Americans.

For example, one of the most consistent finding of public opinion research is how African American partisanship differs from that of whites. African American allegiance to the Republican Party of Lincoln was solid for the decades between Emancipation and The New Deal, but by the 1940s black Americans had become overwhelmingly Democratic in affiliation. At the same time, white voters increasingly moved to the Republican column, particularly in the South.

African Americans are unique both in the direction of their affiliation and in the homogeneity of the attachment. But despite the strength of this attachment, black Democratic partisanship is quite different from that of white Democrats. There is marked racial division of opinion within the party ranks and leadership. The Congressional Black Caucus often finds itself at odds with party leadership, and among voters, black and white Democrats differ on issues of economic redistribution, domestic public policy, and even foreign policy.

This means that President Obama is not the first contemporary president to experience a noticeable racial approval gap. African American animosity toward Presidents Reagan and Bush, who were well liked by most whites, was a salient feature of the 1980s. African American attitudes toward Clinton were quite different. In 2000, black respondents reported average warmth toward Clinton of 79 points, a presidential score, that for the first time, outstripped black American ratings for Reverend Jesse Jackson. The approval ratings among African Americans for George W. Bush made history when they plummeted to single digits in some polls during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

This history suggests that black voter support of Obama is not driven solely by his identity as the first African American president, but instead is rooted in more persistent racial differences in American politics.

Therefore, while my academic-self is unsurprised by this racial gap, my citizen-self is distressed. One of the distinctive and exciting features of the Obama candidacy was the appeal of its multi-racial coalition. I appreciated the Obama yard signs in Hebrew and Arabic, the bumper sticker that read Older White Woman for Obama, the sustaining role of hip-hop music in the campaign, and watching Americans of all backgrounds chant Si Se Puede.

I have always been more impressed by the Obama coalition than by Obama himself. Perhaps this is because as a Hyde Park, Chicagoan I began following Obama's career when he was a smart, but awkward, state senator who endured a tough congressional loss. Perhaps it's because I've always secretly like Michelle better. Whatever his shortcomings, I was thrilled by Obama's 2008 campaign because his candidacy became a space where a real, winning, multi-racial, electoral coalition emerged around progressive issues on the national stage. My greatest hope for this campaign-built-on-hope was for America's racial possibilities if this diverse coalition could be sustained.

I was not alone in my enthusiasm. In the weeks immediately following the election of President Obama, Americans reported significant optimism about the future of race relations and racial equality. But late last week Gallup reported that post-election racial optimism has waned among all Americans, and particularly among black people.

On October 29, Gallup reported responses to the question: "Do you think that relations between blacks and whites will always be a problem for the United States or that a solution will eventually be worked out?" Responses reflected patterns similar to 1963, with 40% of Americans expecting race always to be a problem. And though black Americans had become more optimistic a year ago, they are now significantly more pessimistic about race in America.

These Gallup findings mirror decades of public opinion research showing that African Americans and whites differ dramatically on their perception of the existence of discrimination, and in their assessment of the potential for realizing a racially fair society. These differing perceptions of racial discrimination translate into enormous gaps in support for public policies. These gaps have effectively stymied effective coalitions for progressive policies for decades.

Despite the presence of white and Latino voters at the Newark rally on Sunday, this racial divide felt troubling and present.

Black Americans have become significantly more supportive of President Obama and more pessimistic about the country as the President has endured attacks that seem personal and racially motivated. This trend is potentially troublesome for several reasons. If black voters feel the need to rally around the President to protect him from racial attacks, then they are less able to function as full members of the coalition. Black voters need to be able to both praise and criticize the President in order to ensure their individual and collective interests are voiced.

Further, if President Obama's poll numbers are primarily bolstered by an enthusiastic, but racially isolated core, then his administration becomes more vulnerable to unfairly racialized attacks from opponents. Those opponents could seek to cast President Obama as a protector of identity-group interests, rather than as a broad representative of American interests.

President Obama and his administration may seek to distance themselves from the negative implications of racialized support by enacting social conservatives policies. This was a strategy used by President Clinton during the second half of his first term. It has the perverse effect of punishing African Americans for their political support and loyalty.

Even as Democrats seek to pass health care reform they need also to aggressively rebuild the foundation of mullti-racial enthusiasm that drove the 2008 election. President Obama's efficacy is seriously undermined to the extent that his base shrinks and divides along racial lines.

Even more important, Americans' faith in our capacity to find common ground and achieve collective aims is eroding--quickly.

Comments (219)

1. note to ms. harris lacewell: obama is also white.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 11:33am

2. "and watching Americans of all backgrounds chant Si Se Puede"

   how nauseating was that?! i'm a socialist, and live in one of the most liberal areas of the country, but hearing people chant 'si se puede' to any member of today's democratic party (who cheered and enabled some of the most radical bush policies)....was so thoroughly nauseating that i believe it has ruined the memory of the original movement which first chanted it....

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 11:36am

3. Black Americans have become significantly more supportive of President Obama and more pessimistic about the country as the President has endured attacks that seem personal and racially motivated. This trend is potentially troublesome for several reasons.

   posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 11/02/2009 @ 11:29am

   Criticizing President Obama is not racist Ms Harris-Lacewell

   What does racism have to do with a president who:

   brings Federal trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see

   Institutes a Govt takeover of American Companies (GM & AIG)

   Is leading an effort to destroy private healthcare in this country and lead to govt control of our lives.

   Weekly uses the media to slur his critics using good old Chicago politics

   It's not the president's skin color, it's his policies and his narcissistic, personal attack style of presidency that has people like myself outraged.

   Take the racism chip off of your shoulder and listen to Americans.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 11:48am

4. "They don't want to see us unite All they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting..."

   -- Bob Marley

   Posted by Citizen54 at 11/02/2009 @ 11:51am

5. Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 11:33am

   Hardly matters, DD.

   50 years ago would Obama have been allowed to use the same public library as a white person in Happy's home state of Texas?

   or row a boat with a white person in Rio/BigPosture's home state of Oklahoma???

   ((Or either of those guys seen anything wrong with that happening????))

   Posted by Mask at 11/02/2009 @ 11:54am

6. Harris-Lacewell has become unreadable--unelss one enjoys reading the same story every time: blame white people.

   Posted by urmygyro at 11/02/2009 @ 11:54am

7. "note to ms. harris lacewell: obama is also white."

   She's also white. I have noticed an odd tendency with Harris-Lacewell to discount her own whiteness. I think it's rather odd that she ID's herself as solely black and says that there's no such thing as mixed or biracial in her eye. Sounds like the one drop rule from more racially oppressive days.

   No one seems to think it's hip to be white. In the 50's and before, passing was common. Of course, this was due to some horrible social reasons. Now if you are mixed you have to claim blackness and not dare mention the white half. It's strange to me.

   But yes, Obama, is not just a black man. He's a mixed and or biracial man. And he can represent more than just the "black cause," whatever you define that to be.

   Posted by snottysnot at 11/02/2009 @ 11:54am

8. "Criticizing President Obama is not racist Ms Harris-Lacewell"

   but singing "barack the magic negro" to 50 million people isn't racist at all....

   or carrying signs with obama dressed as a tribesman with a bone through his nose.....

   etc, etc, etc....

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 11:58am

9. "Take the racism chip off of your shoulder and listen to Americans"

   spoken like a true christian! er, um, maybe not....

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 11:59am

10. "50 years ago would Obama have been allowed to use the same public library as a white person in Happy's home state of Texas?"

    i meant it in the purely literal, factual sense: obama is also white. very white (= kansas).

    let's give him props for being both....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 12:01pm

11. this is soooooooooo 20th century.......

    time to grow up, kiddies.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 12:01pm

12. " Already a strong supporter of Governor Corzine I wasn't going to be convinced."

    GO, GO, GOLDMAN!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 12:02pm

13. it's definitely not cool to be white: so uncool, in fact, that it's become fashionable for white people to bash whites.....

    i know people who say, "can't move to portland, too many whites"

    or, "can't live in cole valley or the castro, too many whites".....

    interesting that so many whites are so not into being white anymore....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 12:04pm

14. "his narcissistic, personal attack style of presidency"

    for someone (obama) so timid, so conciliatory, so incredibly gracious and studied.....it's hard for me to believe any claim that obama has an "attack" style of presidency....

    and of course, anti cites no examples....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 12:06pm

15. Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 12:01pm

    True.

    Basic fact is not all opposition to Obama is racism...I'd say low 40s, even high 30s. (Based on the poll of Repubs who think or are "unsure" as to his origin of birth...heheh)

    I fully think Larry would say the same thing if Obama was "Pierre O'Flynn" with an Irish daddy and French mommy.

    But that large chunk DOES exist. Happy, Rush, goodly number of ditto-heads for sure as well as the Birthers, etc..

    So both "It's all racism" and "There's no racism" are false premises.

    Posted by Mask at 11/02/2009 @ 12:13pm

16. I'm not sure I'd agree that "Presidents Reagan and Bush, who were well liked by most whites."

    Putting that aside, the comments here so far are more telling than anything in the article.

    No one is saying that ANY criticism of Obama is and of itself racist. But if you believe that racists have not been galvanized by Obama becoming President than you are not being honest.

    The overall issue at large is a fragmentation of society based on our individual needs. That more than anything is eroding our common ground.

    Posted by manostorgo at 11/02/2009 @ 12:16pm

17. "Basic fact is not all opposition to Obama is racism"

    never said it was.

    but we know for a fact that some of it is....and that it is being fuelled by very prominent people.

    and that's not even beginning to address the very real question of why a good portion of his opposition is pretty stupid...

    you have people complaining about social security benefits who receive.....social security benefits.

    or people complaining about universal healthcare who receive.....medicare. those are clearly very dumb people....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 12:21pm

18. The overall issue at large is a fragmentation of society based on our individual needs. That more than anything is eroding our common ground. Posted by manostorgo at 11/02/2009 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I don't agree. if it were true we would not have the poor repugs defending the privileges of the wealthy, as is shown in these pages. we are instead divided by social issues, abortion, homosexuality etc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/02/2009 @ 12:33pm

19. >>>Black voters need to be able to both praise and criticize the President in order to ensure their individual and collective interests are voiced. <<<

    I wouldn't trot this out as an excuse to criticize the president.

    The reason why 92% of blacks and 68% of Latinos support the president even today is that we know he is on OUR side. Period.

    And, no, I don't think Obama will do a Clinton redux and push for reforms based on stereotypes of Reagan's "Welfare Queen" with 10 kids and a drug dealing boyfriend with a big Cadillac.

    If you want to criticize the president MELISSA, do not hide behind the racial approval gap. The president already get ample criticism from FOX News, whose angles and stories seem to be followed my others in the mainstream media.

    Now is the time to get behind the president, and make sure the PROGRESSIVE reforms he wants to enact become reality.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/02/2009 @ 12:34pm

20. Too many typos! Let's try it again:

    >>>Black voters need to be able to both praise and criticize the President in order to ensure their individual and collective interests are voiced. <<<

    I wouldn't trot this out as an excuse to criticize the president.

    The reason why 92% of blacks and 68% of Latinos support the president even today is that we know he is on OUR side. Period.

    And, no, I don't think Obama will do a Clinton redux and push for reforms based on Reagan-era stereotypes of the BLACK "Welfare Queen" with 10 kids and a drug dealing boyfriend with a big Cadillac.

    If you want to criticize the president MELISSA, do not hide behind the racial approval gap. The president already gets ample criticism from FOX News, whose news angles and stories seem to be followed by others in the mainstream media.

    Now is the time to get behind the president, and make sure the PROGRESSIVE reforms he wants to enact become reality.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/02/2009 @ 12:50pm

21. "The reason why 92% of blacks and 68% of Latinos support the president even today is that we know he is on OUR side. Period."

    but not on the side of innocent muslim men who languish in secret prisons....

    as judging by his exceeding even bush's radical counter-terror policies, state secrets, wiretapping, etc....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 1:09pm

22. Just sounds like O may be able to get the black vote interested in Corzine, maybe...while some others just may not be that into Corzine.

    Posted by TheAfterParty at 11/02/2009 @ 1:15pm

23. @ANTISOCIALIST:Your argument comes straight fro FoxNews. Trillion dollar deficits were answers to leftover problems.

    If the gov't had no say in AIG & GM bailouts, you would then complain of "just giving money away", as was done with the banks.

    Private healthcare is gouging US (you & me) without giving us coverage that even comes close to the cost.

    His critics (FoxNews,perhaps) have been on a smear campaign from day one, not caring about truth;can you say "birther","death to grandma".

    As for race, there is no other way to define the birther movement, as it is not even thinly weiled to say that "he is not one of us". There is no way to discuss improving race relations if we keep our heads buried in the sand.

    brings Federal trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see

    Institutes a Govt takeover of American Companies (GM & AIG)

    Is leading an effort to destroy private healthcare in this country and lead to govt control of our lives.

    Weekly uses the media to slur his critics using good old Chicago politics

    It's not the president's skin color, it's his policies and his narcissistic, personal attack style of presidency that has people like myself outraged.

    Take the racism chip off of your shoulder and listen to Americans.

    Posted by antisocialist

    Posted by david1976 at 11/02/2009 @ 1:48pm

24. Let's try this again,as the first post was too busy: @ANTISOCIALIST:Your argument comes straight fro FoxNews. Trillion dollar deficits were answers to leftover problems.

    If the gov't had no say in AIG & GM bailouts, you would then complain of "just giving money away", as was done with the banks.

    Private healthcare is gouging US (you & me) without giving us coverage that even comes close to the cost.

    His critics (FoxNews,perhaps) have been on a smear campaign from day one, not caring about truth;can you say "birther","death to grandma".

    As for race, there is no other way to define the birther movement, as it is not even thinly weiled to say that "he is not one of us". There is no way to discuss improving race relations if we keep our heads buried in the sand. End of my answers.

    Your thoughts:

    brings Federal trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see

    Institutes a Govt takeover of American Companies (GM & AIG)

    Is leading an effort to destroy private healthcare in this country and lead to govt control of our lives.

    Weekly uses the media to slur his critics using good old Chicago politics

    It's not the president's skin color, it's his policies and his narcissistic, personal attack style of presidency that has people like myself outraged.

    Take the racism chip off of your shoulder and listen to Americans.

    Posted by antisocialist

    Posted by david1976 at 11/02/2009 @ 2:04pm

25. Ovamas supporters are for redistribution the rest arItoit. That's the line.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 2:15pm

26. How long must we endure the same old baseless whining without foundation.

    1. A African-white-Indonesian muslim raised man who looks Black was elected President of the U.S.A.!

    2.From a christian as well as a conservative basis his marxist leftist policies and administration are dispiseable to us as is the totalitarian attitude of the Demoncrat congress!

    3. If he were white we would feel the same!

    Do you get it now Ms Mistaken Harris-Lacewell or is that too simple for you?

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 2:15pm

27. MH-L: The event mirrors recent trends in the polls. Presidential job approval polls by Gallup have tracked two consistent trends in President Obama's ratings: overall decline and a widening racial gap between black and white Americans.

    No worries, Ms. Lacewell......most of the down slide has already occurred as MASK is quite HAPPY to tell us that Magic is doing great by hanging around `majority, ie 50%' approval.

    The Convenient Truth is the blacks are stuck on BHO as well as all the liberals......together, that's worth north of 30%, even if 60k more US troops move into Afghanistan. Add in the Gubber employees, that's probably another 15% and then some of the union folks....and bingo, Magic isn't likely to fall much below 40~45% no matter what!

    Hope this cheers up the left......the bottom of that Well of Hope and Change is almost visible....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 2:24pm

28. A general comment on the "Racial Divide"......

    I too, harbored some hope, despite clear evidence of Racism displayed by Magic's supporters before the Election ("Clean and Articulate", Ferraro, Clinton, Magic Negro parody that originated from the left, black preacher can openly God Damn America), that racial relations, and perceptions, would improve.

    That bit of "hope" went into cardiac arrest on the front steps of Prof. Asshole's front porch in Cambridge and died at the feet of Magic's brilliance and the `stupidity' of the police officers.

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 2:30pm

29. As someone descended from Finns, Norwegians, and Germans, I'll say it outright: white people, and white men in particular, are the biggest political problem in this country. The primary race problem we have in the US is a white problem. Even just excluding the narrower constituency of Southern white males, we would be a progressive majority country.

    Many white people are still mentally living in the 1950s and 1960s when it comes to race. Externally they avoid many of the overt signs of racism, but the patterns of thinking are those that made segregation the norm in this country (and help it persist in many parts of the country to the current day.) White people refuse to even admit that they are privileged as whites, much less actually reject that privilege.

    There are a growing number of people who are moving behind these attitudes, but their numbers are confined largely to cities, and to certain more liberal regions, and to the younger generation. The long term trends are encouraging. The current reality is n0t.

    Posted by llachglin at 11/02/2009 @ 2:31pm

30. As someone descended from Finns, Norwegians, and Germans,...

    Posted by llachglin at 11/02/2009 @ 2:31pm

    How's Oslo doing today, now that Muslims are `noticeable'? Same deal, right, it's the white people's fault for being white and having built that silly country!

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 2:48pm

31. As someone descended from Finns, Norwegians, and Germans,...

    Posted by llachglin at 11/02/2009 @ 2:31pm

    How's Oslo doing today, now that Muslims are `noticeable'? Same deal, right, it's the white people's fault for being white and having built that silly country!

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 2:48pm

    So.....Muslim = non-white?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/02/2009 @ 3:45pm

32. Ya Schnell, you know, like happys black house, but he's not racist.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/02/2009 @ 4:06pm

33. I think Melissa and many in her circle & the Washington bubble tend to overthink EVERYTHING. There are many reasons why the Corzine/Obama rally wasn't as diverse as it was during the Presidential election. It could be that people are worn the hell out from the last election cycle or getting in on an Obama rally in the past was damn near impossible because there were a lot of ppl attending from out of state & region. Perhaps ppl just aren't that into Corzine. I have a hard time believing that the many ethnic groups that supported Obama throughout his campaign have suddenly abandoned him. I think if Obama ran today, he would still have the same support-probably more. He'd still win VA, NY & NJ. Perhaps this is a wake up call to the lazy Democratic Party. Obama can't save the entire party by himself. I refuse to overthink myself into a tissy throughout Obama's entire tenure in office, but you go ahead Melissa. You're good at it.

    Posted by Nadine at 11/02/2009 @ 4:17pm

34. I'll say it outright: white people, and white men in particular, are the biggest political problem in this country.

    Posted by llachglin at 11/02/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Oh great another selfhating white leftist buying into the racial guilt P.C.!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 4:31pm

35. Here we go again, for the umpteenth time, Melissa Harris-Lacewell and others on this thread are fanning the flames of racial division.

    Rodney King asked: "Can we all get along?"

    The answer from libs, it appears, is no.....while posturing themselves as simon pure on matters of race it seems they have a vested interest in keeping the divisions roiling.....

    So that they (libs) can condemn our country and condemn those of differing political ideologies, while posturing that they have all the insight, answers and wisdom.

    Here is an article that blasts those lib concepts to smithereens.

    November 02, 2009 The Vilification of Rush By Kenneth L. Hutcherson http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_vilification_of_rush.html

    some excerpts:

    "..........Liberals would prefer no opposition. Behind the force field of political correctness, there should never be any disagreement once the liberal mind has decided that something is good for society. There can be no opposition to the "correct" way of thinking, and if you don't think "correctly," you are attacked.

    Those who dare to disagree with liberal orthodoxy are punished sooner or later. Not even someone as powerful as Rush Limbaugh, whose dream of part ownership of the St. Louis Rams was shattered by a particularly insidious species of liberal intolerance, is immune....."

    ".......I believe with all my heart that minorities, especially African-Americans, will never be free until they stop allowing people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to insist they adopt the mentality of victims. Likewise, they will not be free until they take the next bold step: start thanking God for America, and stop condemning the white male......."

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/02/2009 @ 4:37pm

36. Posted by david1976 at 11/02/2009 @ 2:04pm

    You're wrong because I don't watch Fox news. I don't listen to Hannity, O'Reilly, or Beck. Limbaugh only a couple of hours per year.

    It's called using your intelligence based upon the available information.

    Since you appear to be new; I was against the bailouts (as were most conservatives). I would have just let GM go bankrupt (which they did anyway).

    Private healthcare doesn't cost me anything because I don't use private or govt healthcare and I'm 60 yrs old.

    You might check the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). They are the ones forecasting the trillion dollar deficits.

    Your "birther" comment is just a Straw Man as I've said nothing about Obama's birth. I fully believe he is an American citizen with the birthright to be President.

    Come back and argue when you get out of high school.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 4:59pm

37. What shld have been disturbing is that blacks continue to support a man who does not support them. As a black man who worked to get Obama elected I am extremely dissapointed in the results that we are getting from Obama. Obama was the candidate of change but he is the president of the status quo. His reluctance to be seen as a black man forces him to abandon the concerns of his most supportive constituency. I know some of you will say he is the president of all the people and that is true and he shows that by paying homage to the groups that got him elected. He wldnt dare avoid issues that Jews hold dear yet he avoids any issue that concerns black America. The high unemployment rates, the lack of healthcare and adequate education affect the black community much worse than most but all we have seen from Obama concerning these issues is lip service. As unlikely as it may have seemed it may be said that after four years of Obama the black community was worse off not better. And this is will definiitely be the case if we keep admiring the man and ignoring his lack of results.

    Posted by robbep at 11/02/2009 @ 6:16pm

38. For once, I agree with MHB (a racist herself ). Today's "racial divide", created and fueled by liberals for decades, and now taken to a whole new level by the "Racist in Chief", Barack "White man's greed runs a world in need" Obama.........may and should (in a just world) swallow him and the left!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:26pm

39. This is a very important topic, not helped by people yelling about what's PC and who's got self-hate or whether someone is black, white, mixed, muslim.

    The plain truth is that it was a tremendous moment in US history to elect a person who's not all white. And now this achievement is being hacked down -- Not out, let us hope! -- by people who have not conquered their racism. They may not even recognize its presence in their makeup.

    One thing we lack in our present distress is a large public movement to examine racism closely and expose its deep tentacles. Instead we are fighting over health care and cap and trade. The big picture is lost in this, and when it's past we'll fight over the waning wars and never talk about race except once or twice in Obama's attempt to get re-elected in 2012.

    We would be so much better a country if we could get past this hurdle.

    Posted by Larry Thorson at 11/02/2009 @ 6:29pm

40. Now now, MHB, before you go throwin' the race card at me I'd like to inform you that I didn't vote for McCain, I wrote in a strong black woman! Any guess who she is? I'll give you a little hint: a few years ago some racist/lunatic liberal drew up a cartoon depicting her as Aunt Jemima!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:30pm

41. I have a comment but the first thing I want to say is thank you for a well researched and deeply-experienced piece on a very complex subject.

    I think this disparity will narrow in 2010 when people begin to realize what citizens have to loose from more corporatist governance. I believe 2010 and not 2008 is the "election of the century." In 2008, you had the country on the precipice of depression, with a race that pitted what may be the best politician in a hundred years against a man past-his-prime who had sold his soul to get the nomination of a party that distrusted him, and who then --- right out of the box --- selected a buffoon as his running mate. It was an historic victory but not the best test

    2010 is the test. As Bill Maher said: "Just because we elected a smart president once, doesn't mean the American people aren't stupid." We'll have to wait and see that, but I like the direction the country has taken under Obama's leadership and I believe the his rock-ribbed steadiness will serve the country well over the long haul.

    Don't misunderestimate my frustrations: we should have already lifted the needle exchange funding band and the stupidity of "don't ask / don't tell." should have been ended immediately; I wouldn't hire Larry Summers to fuck up a wet dream and Tim Geithner is too close to those he regulates to be on my Xmas wish-list but all-in-all, America feels like a vastly improved country, although, I confess, I like the news best when I'm looking at it from France.

    Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/02/2009 @ 6:39pm

42. It's called using your intelligence based upon the available informationPosted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yea, but their koolaid taste so fine to them they can never return to cognative thought again!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 6:39pm

43. Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 11:48am

    "brings Federal trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see"

    The same could be said for Bush, who did this during an economic boom.

    "Institutes a Govt takeover of American Companies (GM & AIG)"

    As someone else asked, would you have preferred the money just be given to those companies in return for nothing?

    "Is leading an effort to destroy private healthcare in this country and lead to govt control of our lives."

    Yes we know how competition and addressing waste is a threat to private healthcare.

    "Weekly uses the media to slur his critics using good old Chicago politics"

    You mean like accusing anyone who opposed teh Iraq war of not being patriotic?

    "It's not the president's skin color, it's his policies and his narcissistic, personal attack style of presidency that has people like myself outraged."

    No Larry. You're outraged because your political party is not in power and your party is is dissarray.

    Right wingers are such sore losers.

    Posted by Shingo at 11/02/2009 @ 6:47pm

44. I agree with Larry T, we would be a better country if we could get over the race issue and start dealing with bigger problems, but the dem's keep bringin' it up because it's the only way they can win. Whether it be a politician using the race card to win office, a trial lawyer using the race card to win millions for himself (not the supposed victim), community activists like Sharpton and Jackson, preachers like Rev. Wright , unrepentant terrorists/college professors like Bill Ayers, op-ed producers (not a journalist for sure) like MHB, or many in academia... stoking the flames of racism to keep themselves relevant is a must, because without that race card....they're irrelevant, nothing, losers, unemployed. Therefore, "today's racism" is here to stay!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:49pm

45. Another man blacks supported was a murderer named OJ Simpson! He showed very little, if any, connection with the black community and instead committed his own version of "white flight', havin' a good ol' time with his WHITE friends and WHITE wife on golf courses full of WHITE people. Sure, he had a few black friends, CELEBRITIES and FOOTBALL STARS, but I have spent far more I my time with black friends, playing golf,basketball, fishing, taking kids to park etc. than OJ every had in his adult life! He never supported the black community, it's just that the race-baiter's/media framed it that way!

    Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:59pm

46. i wrote my post after I read MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL's thoughtful and factual analysis of the dynamics of race in contemporary American politics, but before I read any of the comments. I've very glad that I did, because I might have been flabbergasted into making some comment on the depth of the vitriol and the magnitude of the ignorance that one confronts, even on these pages.

    The only comment that seems worth making in response to the loose use of words like: "Marxist," "totalitarian," "Liberal," "racism" and a phrase like "selfhating white leftist buying into the racial guilt..." is that I have had a book on a shelf next to my desk for about 30 years, that might be helpful. The book is "Safire's Political Dictionary." It reminds one of a time when we had conservatives like Safire and Buckley, with IQs above room temperature.

    Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/02/2009 @ 7:22pm

47. Hey Barry25, what the heck does OJ have to do with the subject at hand? You are a real piece of work, did you know? ...................... .sigh.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/02/2009 @ 8:55pm

48. Posted by barry25 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:49pm

    That's right Barry, it's the Dems whoa re to blame for racism because they continue to point out the racism of the Republicans.

    I'm sure those right wingers holding up racist signs at the Tea parties and sending mails with images of Oabam with a bone through his nose were Democrat plants right Barry?

    Posted by Shingo at 11/02/2009 @ 9:03pm

49. stupid humans.

    i mean squirrels don't go through this...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 9:23pm

50. Too bad so many supported the candidacy of Barack Obama, based on their hopes and on their desire to deal a blow to racism in the US by electing a black-skinned president. This is true not only of people who are generally non-political but of people who make their livings observing and writing about US politics.

    On the basis of experience, competency, there was not much evidence to support high expectations from a President Obama. The continuous thread in his life after Columbia College was ambition, political ambition. Community organizer, law degree, short period of practice, adjunct law professor, Illinois legislator - each step with luck provided a springboard to the next - he made it to the US Senate. The skill that propelled him in each instance was affability and rhetoric.

    Finally, in November 2oo8, we elected a change-promising president, but we installed practitioner of continuity, in war and in peace. He filled the gaps in his understanding with the understanding of financial lackeys and enthusiasts for empire. Even in the one area, constitutional law, where Prof. Obama should have had the knowledge to defend our basic law, he trashed it - as today with his AG pleading "state secrecy" in federal court.

    Racial considerations have been very good to the candidate and to the President, Barack Obama. If that changes, it will be the one change he brought about.

    Posted by goedel at 11/02/2009 @ 9:26pm

51. note to ms. harris lacewell: obama is also white.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 11:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Of course it's true, but as I'm sure you know, if you live in America and you look black, then you are black. My point is that his social experience has probably taken place from the African American perspective, there are a lot of inferences. I don't think they all have to be described to this audience.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/02/2009 @ 10:07pm

52. Even more important, Americans' faith in our capacity to find common ground and achieve collective aims is eroding--quickly.

    posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 11/02/2009 @ 11:29am

    I think that has a lot more to do with being a populist party, rather than a junket for the wealthy and connected to control the government in order to benefit a tiny few. The republican party is a business more than an actual political party, so it's natural that they seem to have a more cohesive message. They simply hire people to tow the same line time and again. What protects us is that most people understand that their message is a nightmare of lies and hypocrisy, which is rejected at the polls. As for race, lets not confuse a more personal interest in being in the presence of President Obama by African Americans, if that's what we are seeing, as a lack of interest among others. It's impossible for me to understand how black people feel, but that doesn't mean I don't understand suffering, or feeling persecuted, or knowing what feeling like a second class citizen is like. My daughter is black, Puerto Rican, and I'm starting to think that it is most important that she attends one of his events to see him in person while President. The reason being that when the time comes that these things start to affect her, maybe the carrying that memory will help remind her that one fashions their own way in the world, no matter where they started. Nothing is impossible, if you care enough to achieve it. That said, it's plain to me that people voted for Barack Obama because he has proven himself to be worthy of representing us, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to apply pre-Civil Rights political trend analysis seems unwise, the situation has changed quite a bit.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/02/2009 @ 10:32pm

53. it's plain to me that people voted for Barack Obama because he has proven himself to be worthy of representing us, nothing more, nothing less.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/02/2009 @ 10:32pm

    "proven"?

    Like his long record of achievements in the Senate? or his long record of voting "Present"?

    It's plain to me, Magic's hold on a certain segment of Americans, is nothing more, nothing less than what we've all seen with the likes of James Jones, David Koresh, and Charles Manson.

    The man won't even release his college transcripts to show he is even of average Ivy-league intelligence. Law Review my ass!

    HE is the Affirmative Action nightmare and proper closing chapter of the `Great Society'!

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 10:49pm

54. Funny because my black friends are the one's who warned me that we can't trust Obama. And they were right.

    But if I was black I would probably be really happy that Obama was President and be willing, for a while, to ignore what a disaster he is as President. Sure he gives great speeches but unless you work for Wall Street, AIG, or GM then Obama is a disaster.

    From the lack of Wall Street reform, the GM bailouts (so GM can move more jobs to China), to the way Obama has worked against health care reform (secret deals with Pharma).

    If people just take off the Obama Love Goggles for a second and compare Obama's record to Bush's they will quickly see that Obama is Bush. Granted Obama is a smarter and well spoken version of Bush. But the trickle down Chicago school policies, the two wars, and the abuse of power are the same.

    If a Republican was doing what Obama is doing you would all be having a cow.

    Posted by masher at 11/02/2009 @ 11:24pm

55. Melissa -- I appreciate your analysis. I have only one big question: Given that Newark is a majority African-American city, is it not possible that the crowd was more a reflection of the demographics of Newark than a reflection of the county as a whole? I think that a public event with Obama in multi-cultural Los Angeles, my home, would be far more diverse. The enthusiasm for his candidacy produced an unprecedented level of visable support here. Shepherd Fairey's HOPE image of Obama is still ubiquitous all over L.A. -- the number of cars sporting Obama bumper sticker presence alone is still amazing. I've lived in this city 30 years, and can't remember when the white community was so at one with communities of color in supporting a presidential candidate. It would be interesting to see a poll of L.A. whites on this score.

    Posted by afrankel at 11/03/2009 @ 12:53am

56. afrankel wrote: "Melissa -- I appreciate your analysis. I have only one big question: Given that Newark is a majority African-American city, is it not possible that the crowd was more a reflection of the demographics of Newark than a reflection of the county as a whole?"

    That is the first thing that I thought. Certainly, the racial composition of such an event would have been substantially different in Silicon Valley California, Austin, Texas or Manhattan.

    My second thought was: what would Amiri Baraka think of this analysis of politics in Newark? There is certainly no one more intimately qualified to reflect upon the community where he was born and has chosen to live for most of his life, while having the option to live almost anywhere in the world. Just a thought.

    Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 01:37am

57. "note to ms. harris lacewell: obama is also white. Posted by darladoon

    Note to darladoon: Barack Obama is also Black enough to have a statistically greater chance of getting shot for just walking down the street in any major city in America. Last time I checked that bullet would pierce both halves.

    That is a question I would like to see Dr. Harris-Lacewell address. Is it statistically safer to be a Black male in America, since Barrack Obama's election? Have either the police, or the other people who kill Black men, shown any restraint in pulling the trigger, knowing that a Black man is president? That would certainly be a welcome cultural advantage to a community that has shown this president such extraordinary loyalty.

    Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 01:49am

58. If a Republican was doing what Obama is doing you would all be having a cow.

    Posted by masher at 11/02/2009 @ 11:24pm

    ta da!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 02:27am

59. it's plain to me that people voted for Barack Obama because he has proven himself to be worthy of representing us, nothing more, nothing less.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/02/2009 @ 10:32pm

    I think his Presidency is the result of a "perfect storm". A confluence of events and trends that made it possible for an unremarkable, inexperienced cog in Chicago machine politics to rise to the Presidency in such a short time.

    Victor Davis Hanson categorizes this perfect storm as having 5 parts.

    1. Obama's image. Young, eloquent. And Black. Appealled to a longing for another JFK. Had Obama held his same political views, but been white, he would not have had the same appeal.

    2. Obama was following a President everyone was tired of after 8 years.

    3. Running as a Clintonite style centrist allowed voters to think his talk of change was merely cosmetic election year pillow talk.

    4. McCain was not exciting to the GOP core base or independents. And the media abandoned him.

    5. In light of the 2008 downturn, voters equated economic failure to Bush and believed Obama would be differenct from Bush's bailouts and deficit spending.

    Take out any one of those five elements, and Obama probably would not have won.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 03:12am

60. Note to darladoon: Barack Obama is also Black enough to have a statistically greater chance of getting shot for just walking down the street in any major city in America. Last time I checked that bullet would pierce both halves.

    Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 01:49am

    Problem with this analogy is that statistically, it would likely be another black man pulling the trigger. Race having much less to do with it than you suggest.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 03:15am

61. "2. Obama was following a President everyone was tired of after 8 years. "----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 03:12am

    WHY were they "tired of" Dubya, CitiCarr?

    They weren't tired of Reagan enough to elect Dukakis?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 07:56am

62. OBAMA IS NOT KEEPING HIS WORDS.THE WARS ARE STILL CONTINUING. THE CHANGE IS ONLY IN THE COLOR OF THE PRESIDENT.BOTH ARE LIARS.OBAMA IS SURROUNDED BY THE CRONIES OF THE GEORGE W BUSH AND PRO-ISRAELI LOBBIES.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:20am

63. Obama sucks as a President. That might have something to do with his declining support among Americans with triple digit IQs.

    Posted by IUT at 11/03/2009 @ 08:35am

64. Posted by IUT at 11/03/2009 @ 08:35am | ignore this person | warn this person

    shoulda voted for McCain, huh?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/03/2009 @ 08:39am

65. I did not vote for Obama. I am a black conservative Christian. Growing up I was a black nationalist, a socialist, a democrat and I feel Now that I've matured in my critical thinking, am now a Republican Conservative Christian. I am at odds with my family and friends over Obama his candidacy and eventual election. I think I understand how Obama thinks. He is truely sincere in the direction he wants to take this country. He is bent towards the left and is influeneced by social justice issues. However, although he eventually convinced white America he was not someone who should be feared, he has not moved to the center. As a consequence his sharp departure from being a centrist has frightened the Reagan Dems and independants who had great hope in giving this black man a chance. (voters remorse?) Blacks, in general, on the other hand I must say, do not make much of a distintion about policy and race. Many voted for the first time simply to vote for the first Black Man to have a ligitamate chance to get elected. They do not understand the dynamics of the pushback towards Obamas policies, and are prone to label critisism racist. Unfortunately this is true of the elite black class as well. ( Black Jornalist, Black Congressional leaders, Entertainers ) This divide is rooted in a lack of critical thinking about the situation and emotion rather than logic. Obama's mistake was assuming a mandate to radically change a system that has been in place since the founding of ths country. There was great hope in his election for the nation, however he would have been better served to move genually to the center and adopt a truely bi-partisan approach.

    Posted by walksoft at 11/03/2009 @ 10:06am

66. Posted by walksoft at 11/03/2009 @ 10:06am

    What "radical change" has Obama initiated, specifically?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 10:11am

67. While I did not vote for President Obama I had hoped, albiet somewhat skeptically, that some of the promise of his candidacy would prove true. That he would, in fact, be post-racial, non-partisan and that he would usher in a "new era" of cooperation in government. Alas, my skeptism turned out to be appropriate. This is the worst run, most partisan, most divisive Whitehouse since Carter. And the disaster that was Carter's presidency will be dwarfed by the disaster that is yet to come. It was inevitable I suppose, that as the voices of disenchantment became louder the left would throw the race issue on the table. It emerges every time anyone suggests incompetence in people of color. But incompetence is incompetence. I used to be hopeful with regard to race; I am no longer. I have decided to accept and embrace my racism, since I will be branded with it anyway. I frankly no longer believe that their can ever be a satisfactory transition to a post racial society and that this issue will be the 800 pound gorilla in the room for the rest of our existance as a nation.

    Posted by ronadolph at 11/03/2009 @ 10:19am

68. walksoft,

    proof that obama has "not moved to the center"?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 10:47am

69. Posted by walksoft at 11/03/2009 @ 10:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by ronadolph at 11/03/2009 @ 10:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

    what planet are you people on?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/03/2009 @ 10:48am

70. Note to darladoon: Barack Obama is also Black enough to have a statistically greater chance of getting shot for just walking down the street in any major city in America. Last time I checked that bullet would pierce both halves.

    That is a question I would like to see Dr. Harris-Lacewell address. Is it statistically safer to be a Black male in America, since Barrack Obama's election? Have either the police, or the other people who kill Black men, shown any restraint in pulling the trigger, knowing that a Black man is president? That would certainly be a welcome cultural advantage to a community that has shown this president such extraordinary loyalty.

    Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 01:49am

    Who do you think shoots more black men in America? the sad truth is that it is other black men/boys.

    I remember when a friend of mine started a limo business in South Central. He had contract with people like Barry White. He lived off Normandy in the 60's blocks (think Rolling 60's gangs). He shut the business down because as he said "my own people keep robbing me and killing my drivers".

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 10:54am

71. Posted by walksoft at 11/03/2009 @ 10:06am

    Posted by ronadolph at 11/03/2009 @ 10:19am

    Both well spoken and likely from the heart....

    Libs won't admit the reality ALL of us harbor some sort of race/class/sex-ism, as not one of us, can honestly say we haven't looked at someone and stereotyped them.

    Most conservatives like me, aren't racists as what the Libs like to conjure up, that is, images of the KKK and all that historical facts, we treasure ability and achievements. We loved Abdul Jabber, Dr. J, Jordon, Wood, the Williams sisters because they excelled and more importantly, competed on a truly even playing field and we also know, on the academic/political/intellectual level, it will take much, much longer for Blacks to achieve.

    The Liberal Left, in their zeal to speed up what can't be sped up, the development of the mind and mainstream (ok, white) risk/reward values, have, IMO, intentionally enslaved the blacks by bending backward to keep them down. A form of covert Racism of the worst sort that few blacks recognize outside of a Dr. Sowell or Bill Cosby.

    Now, time to vote!

    Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 10:57am

72. Mask,

    You asked "....What "radical change" has Obama initiated, specifically?....."

    C'mon Mask! You already know the answers...

    1. Revision to our health care system, to make it more socialist....you will post back now and say that by the time it gets done (hopefully it won't get done at all according to anything the Dems propose), it won't be socialist at all.

    2. He wants the cap and trade legislation that would raise the costs of energy in order to take care of a problem that appears is not a problem to begin with.

    3. Proposing to close GITMO.

    4. Wanting to investigate and go after those in the CIA who had responsibliity for keeping our country safe, and concentrating on this while attempting item 3 above which would not keep our country safe.

    5. Conducting the Obama Apology Tour in conjunction with capitulating to others in negotiations so that the circumstances come out favorable to them (example Russia) to our detriment and to the detriment of previous allies (see item 6, below), or so that the opposite party in negotiations gets a free license to continue doing what they intend to do (example Iran).

    6. "Dissing" or offending former allies, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, and even the UK, by offending PM Gordon Brown before their (Obama-Brown) first meeting. Sending signals to the world that American exceptionalism is no longer in play, we are just another Sweden now, or so our President thinks.

    7. Switching from being pro-Israel to pro-Palestinian.

    8. Running up the deficit to epic proportions. (Yes, Mask I know that the deficit went up during George W. Bush's administration but that is almost trivial compared to what Obama is and will be doing.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 10:57am

73. Ms. Harris-Lacewell has demonstrated the tendency of so many on the left...to wit, let's keep'm on the plantation. She and her ilk will never be willing to allow black people to make their own choices regarding politics, so "let's feed'm, house'm, an' care for their chillun'" and then tell'm what to think. There is a growing, deep seated anger in the black community that is beginning to repudiate the victim status that the left has foisted on them. Of course, these are just "uncle Toms" who have escaped to the North (hardly an escape) and now are freemen and have found their voice. They are belittled (Thomas Sowell, Justice Thomas) marginalized and ignored by Harris-Lacewell and her fellow travelers because they represent a fearful symmetry that will come to haunt the left once the entire community understands the motivation of the overseer.

    Posted by billsrights at 11/03/2009 @ 11:01am

74. Dr. Harris-Lacewell seems to view policy differences as a manifestation of racism. I tend to differ in that I believe it is incumbent upon Pres. Obama to demonstrate political skill in bridging the policy gap with -out his African American supporter castigating him with charges of "sell out". As far as the BCC, most of it's membership have not had to run in a competitive election in years and are ensconced in districts ( many by law) that make them immune from opposition to reelection. They do not have to worry about building electoral coalitions or legislative coalitions.

    B Marks Dallas TX

    Posted by BMarks at 11/03/2009 @ 11:03am

75. This is just clueless. If Obama had views and policies I agreed with, I'd gladly support him. He does not - and I do not.

    Posted by marju at 11/03/2009 @ 11:10am

76. Posted by billsrights at 11/03/2009 @ 11:01am

    You have actually got it backwards.

    MELISSA has decided to play a left-oriented role similar to Sowell and Shelby Steele on the right by being the go to black person that whites trot out to say things they wish they could say if they were black.

    IT'S DISGUSTING!

    Blacks AND Latinos are loyal to Obama because of a well-founded belief that he cares about the plight of those who are not white, and has enacted specific policies designed to uplift impoverished communities in America where black and Latino people live.

    These policies may not be felt in MELISSA's upscale community in Princeton, but black and brown folks all across America are taking notice that Obama is on an entirely different page from Bush OR Clinton.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 11:11am

77. How about a simple explanation for the lack of diversity at the Obama/Corzine rally. White taxpayers are out working their asses off in order to pay for "reparations" politicians have awarded to America's noisy pampered minorities.

    Posted by Wacky at 11/03/2009 @ 11:13am

78. Blacks AND Latinos are loyal to Obama because of a well-founded belief that he cares about the plight of those who are not white, and has enacted specific policies designed to uplift impoverished communities in America where black and Latino people live.

    These policies may not be felt in MELISSA's upscale community in Princeton, but black and brown folks all across America are taking notice that Obama is on an entirely different page from Bush OR Clinton.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 11:11am

    Thanks Metteyya, sometimes you bring just the right note of humor to the blog.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 11:14am

79. Obama would not be sitting in the White House today unless a significant number of white people had voted for him. So were these people all racists who had a brief moment of lucidity, but who have now returned to their white sheets and burning crosses, Dr. Harris-Lacewell? Or is it just possible, maybe, somehow, that those white voters who supported Obama are actually disappointed in him for reasons having nothing to do with his skin color? Hmmmm.....

    Dr. Harris-Lacewell, you make the point that white people and black people have different perceptions as to whether racism is more or less of a problem today than in the past, or if the situation is improving. Let me say openly that, as a white man, it angers me that the first response to a problem is always that "it must be racism". I and my church gave heavily to the Katrina victims, opening our homes and our wallets, while family members in the military gave even more direct support...white family members, Dr. H-L.... only to be demonized in congressional testimony by witnesses who likened the inept response to Katrina as "racism". Perhaps, just perhaps, if the race card wasn't the first card played in every circumstance, maybe there wouldn't be this gap in perception.

    Clearly, it is impossible for a white person to simply disagree with the leftist direction that President Obama is steering the country, with the massive redistribution of wealth he proposes, with the socialist notes of the GM takeover, with the....oh, what the hell...nevermind. You're right, Dr...it's far easier to simply write it off as racism that to consider that we might simply disagree, regardless of skin color.

    Posted by wmohon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:26am

80. Students of the recent presidential election know how many times Obama played the race card.

    Against Clinton...

    "And by the way, did I mention that he's black?"

    His face on money...

    'Nuf said.

    Posted by JackDavis1 at 11/03/2009 @ 11:29am

81. Get out of the academic platitudes and just be clear.

    Blacks, as a group, went Democrat during the Depression and Great Society because they were predominately a poor economic class and government programs offered them some relief. They went where the money was.

    Blacks, today, have bought into identity politics. This is shown by "Uncle Tom"ing any Black that dares not spout the liberal/Dem mantra, and even questions about Obama "being Black enough".

    Take government welfare programs + identity politics + election of first Black President = Blacks almost 100% voting block and blind support for Obama.

    The racial divide today is a self-inflicted by Blacks on Blacks themselves. It's not a "whitey" problem. Only Blacks can cure the soft racism prison they are in.

    Posted by pnkearns at 11/03/2009 @ 11:31am

82. "Libs won't admit the reality ALL of us harbor some sort of race/class/sex-ism, as not one of us, can honestly say we haven't looked at someone and stereotyped them.

    Most conservatives like me, aren't racists as what the Libs like to conjure up, that is, images of the KKK and all that historical facts, we treasure ability and achievements."----Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 10:57am

    Anything more convincing of Happy being racist than this "EVERYBODY is racist....but I'm not" contradictory rant???

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 11:34am

83. Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 10:57am

    1. Is Medicare "socialism"? If so, why don't Repubs propose eliminating it? If not...why not?

    2. Your own Republican Party doesn't say global warming is "not man made" or "a hoax". So WHO is saying it's "not a problem to begin with"???

    3. General Petraeus supported closing Gitmo. Why is he wrong?

    4. If the CIA did nothing wrong...why can't we investigate?

    5. Outside of you 30%ers, few people HERE or in Europe don't think Obama shouldn't have said what the US did under BUSH was wrong. BTW, most Czechs and Poles didn't want the missile shield either.

    6. How did we "diss" Europe by "telling them we're no better than them"?!?!?!?!?!??

    7. Naturally, not saying "Israel do whatever you want to the Palestinians, we don't care" is being "anti-Israel", right?

    8. "Deficits don't matter...Reagan proved that"--Dick Cheney

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 11:41am

84. Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 11:41am

    MASK,

    You are looking good, my friend!

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 11:44am

85. Posted by pnkearns at 11/03/2009 @ 11:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

    blame the victim.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/03/2009 @ 11:46am

86. Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 11:44am

    sjcher got his Limbaugh talking points, so felt the need to answer for walksoft with them.

    I'd be more interested to hear walksoft's view...what exactly is so "radical" about Obama?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 11:50am

87. The 2008 election was hardly driven by "multi-racial enthusiasm". Try Bush fatigue coupled with a perfectly timed financial collapse. That is why the majority of Americans invested their hopes in a smooth talker with absolutely no previous record of accomplishment. True to this administration's Chicago style, they're also not interested in finding common ground, but rather to bully their vision through Congress before anyone takes notice. That has nothing to do with race and everything to do with policy and how it is implemented. A great number of Americans who invested their hopes in Barack Obama are now having their "Oh crap, I knew it!" moment - simply feeling like a sucker is not racially driven. When you take all those whose beliefs fall in lockstep with the President's and add to that those who DO have something invested in a President of color, they are far outnumbered by those who simply and strongly disagree with his policies. This realization is what is truly behind the racism hissy-fit coming from the Left.

    Posted by jwolo64 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:09pm

88. We have to remember that racism in this country is deeply ingrained. You can see how readily "Americans" both Black and White are quick to blame Obama for not solving all of the problems that the neo-cons have created as a result of their facist policies. It has only been one year since his election and even many of those who supported his election have become disillisusioned by his performance in trying to solve a nearly impossible task.

    As for whites or minorities simply disagreeing with his "socialist" policies we forget how easy it is to mask racism with contemporary political issues. W.E.B Dubois foretold that race would be the problem of the twentieth century. Well it appears to be a continuing problem in the twenty-first century.

    If you can simply look at FOX without being enraged by the out of control propaganda machine, then you might wanted to truly search your soul as to what you truly believe about the "races".

    Posted by uraeus360 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:24pm

89. I've said it time and time again. Barack Obama was the most improbable Presidential candidate since the days of the reconstruction. His election was largely the result of a protest against GWB, his war and his arrogance, which was played up for years by the leftwing media hacks.

    Now, it's not too late for Obama to be a two term President. However, in order to do so, he must first stand for something besides big government, especially at this time. It's not propaganda for the republicans to point out what the democrat's programs are going to do to our kids and grandkids. there is no longer any reason for them to dream, especially if HC and cap and trade become law.

    Obama must also show that he can lead in foreign policy without catering to the far left who are invested in America's defeat in Afghanistan. He should stop his cowardly dithering and give his Generals what they need to provide for a favorable outcome in that crucial part of the world.

    He is still on the tube almost every day but he says nothing of substance. More is less in my opinion. He should go on tv and announce that he will not sign any legislation on HC reform that will provide public money for abortions. He should also reassert that he will not sign any HC legislation that adds one dime to the deficit which would effectively kill Pelosi's silly bill.

    He must also begin the process of keeping his campaign promise of ending gridlock in Washington by inviting the republicans to the HC reform table. That have excellant ideas that need to be considered. Reasonable, not radical HC reform should be the goal. Bipartisan suport for a compromise bill should be the outcome, an outcome that American's can support and give Obama credit for.

    Right now, he's doomed to one term.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:32pm

90. Earth calling MS Harris-Lacewell...

    You wrote, "opponents could seek to cast President Obama as a protector of identity-group interests..."

    Didn't Obama just sign the Defense appropriation, LOADED with so-called "Hate Crime" punishments?

    Isn't favoring gay identity-groups just what Obama is doing?

    Posted by BillSanford at 11/03/2009 @ 12:35pm

91. Clearly, the majority of respondents here do not like the US Constitution. I suspect that is why they (you) voted for Obama to begin with. Despite being a "constitutional law professor", Obama also dislikes the American Constitution. His hand fits in your glove.

    His disdain for the American Constitution is proven in the (very) few public statements he made in his days before becoming a US Senator (promising to uphold the US Constitution), and in the policies he advocates now. Those of us who opposed him, and continue to do so, were tipped off by those with whom he chose to associate (Marxists) and by his desire for "transformational change" in America.

    As information about his "czars" surfaces and his policies gain clarity, more and more, clear thinking Americans can now start to see the hand he and his promoters/supporters hid during his candidacy for the position he now holds; and, to their credit, they are changing their minds about him. Some people take longer than others to open their eyes, and for some, clear vision will come too late, or may never arrive. The more solid the voting block, the longer it will take. Thus the widening divide. I suspect the African American voting block is not nearly as solid as white Marxists suppose them to be.

    White Marxists are the power behind Obama, and they are a much larger, much more consolidated, much more powerful group than African Americans. More importantly, they have much, much more money. And, as white Marxists consolidate power ever more into a centralized government, they will treat African Americans as badly, if not more so (for look at the violent history of Marxists around the world) as they have been treated in the past 70 years.

    And we will all be equally slave to the central planners.

    Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 12:41pm

92. Posted by BillSanford at 11/03/2009 @ 12:35pm

    It's deeper than that - MELISSA is actually saying (this really is unbelievable!) there are not enough BLACK critics of the president, and that this dearth of black critics will lead Obama to do a Clinton-era redux of using the "Black Welfare Queen" and her pimp/drug dealer boyfriend as policy targets to keep whites from thinking he is favoring blacks!

    TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS!

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 12:42pm

93. Three things of many stuck out when I read the article.

    Already a strong supporter of Governor Corzine?!

    Perhaps it's because I've always secretly like Michelle better?!

    Black Americans have become significantly more supportive of President Obama and more pessimistic about the country as the President has endured attacks that seem personal and racially motivated?!

    Melissa Harris-Lacewell is out on a limb somewhere.

    I didn't really need to check on the web to discover that she's an African American.

    Mike

    Posted by Redbourn at 11/03/2009 @ 12:45pm

94. Cargill (the great liberal) did a study and found that race was no issue with conservatives and that conservatives were truly concerned with the future of country and believed Obama had deep designs.

    So why does your random speculation of racism hold any water. The citizens think the racists are the black power brokers who have garnered billions by gaming the system and not helped blacks at all.

    They don't want blacks to be educated and assimilated into society because they would loose their concentrated voting blocks.

    The inner city schools are strong evidence of this. The blacks are 30-40% behind Hispanics.

    Obama had 100million in Chicago to help education and filterd the money to COMMUNITY PARTNERS and not one child was educated from that money.

    If you continue fingering the wrong culprits you will never help the inner city minorities.

    Posted by djmelfi at 11/03/2009 @ 12:47pm

95. Take out any one of those five elements, and Obama probably would not have won.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/03/2009 @ 03:12am

    I disagree. President Obama's electoral margin was very healthy. I think you could eliminate two or even three of those element and he'd still win.

    For instance, I think Hillary would have beaten McCain as well. So number 1 is out.

    I think the most important, #2 (tired of Bush 43), is what created #4 (a candidate that did not excite the GOP base).

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

96. One year, Obama has been in office 10 monthes, not a year, and the electorate expects everything to be better after 8 years of the bush/cheney disaster. There are things I don't agree with in the Obama administration, can you say Summers and Geitner, but I think its going to take longer than a year to see results to many of the problems that the bush/cheney cabal created. Come on people, give the administration and Obama a chance, I swear we have the patience of a gnat!

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

97. Blacks shifted to democrats largly based on what was in it for them. The creation of welfare and the resulting abuse have done more to harm this country than any terrorism possibly could. We are our own worst enemies.

    Without going into it too deeply, I'll just summarize what I've been saying for awhile now. Welfare was seen by the black community as a means to populate their race, immorally and unethically, while at the same time getting whitey to pay the tab for their reckless behavior. Welfare queens had seven, eight and more babies, each one getting them a larger check for good ole uncle Sam, while the fathers, several different fathers in many cases, got off scott free. Now these babies are full grown and voted for Obama to the tune of 98% because he was going to give them even more! He told ACORN that they would have a seat at the table in policy formation.

    It had nothing to do with their pride that a black man could become a President because he is not a black man. He is only 50% black. He, as Darladoon pointed out, is equally white. But he will ante up to the blacks because he needs their votes to be re-elected. Anything short of EVERYTHING will be seen by the black community as a sell out.

    Democrat policies have virtually destroyed the black community and have kept them down intentionally. Politicians, black or white or any other color are only in it for themselves. The demographics of the next Presidential election will be startling different from the last. I don't see Obama even reaching 30% of the vote.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:58pm

98. Its not a racial divide that will sink Obama its the performance divide. African Americans seem wedded to the Democratic party regardless of the disasters that Democratic policies wreak on the nations economy and foreign policy. And of course, with Obama having an African American in the White House further stregthens that tie. However, for the rest of America Obama and the Democrats overall disastrous performance is what counts. 9.8% UNEMPLOYMENT, a totally corrupt stimulous bill that didn't stimulate one net job, Obama's string of broken promises from signing into law 9000 corrupt earmarks to be the most transparent administration in history, Neda dying in the streets of Terhan while Obama put the U.S. on record as not wanting to meddle, etc etc etc. Failure Jimmy Carter style is what will sink Obama, and despite the charges of racism from the Obama camp it won't have anything to do race!

    Posted by valwayne at 11/03/2009 @ 1:09pm

99. >>>Without going into it too deeply, I'll just summarize what I've been saying for awhile now. Welfare was seen by the black community as a means to populate their race, immorally and unethically, while at the same time getting whitey to pay the tab for their reckless behavior. Welfare queens had seven, eight and more babies, each one getting them a larger check for good ole uncle Sam, while the fathers, several different fathers in many cases, got off scott free. Now these babies are full grown and voted for Obama to the tune of 98% because he was going to give them even more!<<<

    This is the same GARBAGE we heard from Reagan that Clinton did not have the guts to challenge.

    Most people on welfare are WHITE! Most blacks on welfare are on it for LESS THAN two years! Women on welfare with more than 4 kids are LESS THAN 1% of all welfare cases, and most of those women are WHITE!

    The Black Welfare Queen is a figment of Lee Atwater's imagination, and it is truly EMBARRASSING that a black Princeton professor would use this wrong-headed view of Reagan that was parroted by Clinton as an excuse to criticize the president!

    Black and Latino's in America are poor because they are unable to find good paying jobs. Period.

    All of the union jobs have dried up with Bush/Clinton policies of encouraging employers to ship manufacturing jobs overseas. What sort of jobs does that leave ANYONE (black, brown or white) with which to buy a home and raise a family who does not have a college degree?

    At least Obama is trying to solve this problem with his new Green Jobs initiatives so that we can get those in impoverished communities back to work in good paying non-degreed jobs.

    It would be great if everyone living in poverty can become a Princeton graduate, but that isn't OUR reality.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 1:18pm

100. Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 1:18pm

     The old Metteyya is back, with guns blazing (figurative of course) Welcome back!

     Posted by Sorelish at 11/03/2009 @ 1:31pm

101. Green jobs. Don't hold your breath. They've tried it elsewhere and it didn't work. For example, in Spain, they tried it and for every green job created, two were lost elsewhere in the economy. Government-driven markets never work. You can build a bunch of green cars but you can't make us buy one.

     Posted by marju at 11/03/2009 @ 1:38pm

102. >>>"All of the union jobs have dried up with Bush/Clinton policies of encouraging employers to ship manufacturing jobs overseas."<<<

     Union jobs went overseas because of union policies, commonly known as extortion: "Pay the unions exhorbitant amounts of money and benefits, or we'll shut you down!!" Given the choices, what company wouldn't go to where the jobs are cheaper? I wonder why so many new American manufaturing plants are built in right-to-work states? Mmmm.

     >>>"At least Obama is trying to solve this problem with his new Green Jobs initiatives so that we can get those in impoverished communities back to work in good paying non-degreed jobs."<<<

     The so-called Green Jobs initiative is little more than a race-baiting, Marxist ploy to retain the affections of certain voter-blocks. Like the clunkers program and the "saved jobs" stimulus, it will cost more per unit produced/sold than the new positions will pay per year. As usual, Progressives/Marxists will make sure the difference will be made up by America's future generations. And poor people of all races will be in the same place they found themselves in at the start: wondering why nobody can help them out of the mess.

     I know in certain parts of my family, generations have been voting for Democrats, and they're as poor now (relatively speaking) as they were 60 years ago. Whereas, other parts of my family have decided not to wait for a handout. Huge difference in the way we think and in our results. New immigrants who work hard and take a chance by starting a business and putting others to work, show true progress in one or two generations.

     What's the difference? Simple: Progressives/Marxists don't really want to help the poor not be poor any longer. They want power, whatever the results.

     Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 1:49pm

103. Right now, he's doomed to one term.----Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:32pm

     Exactly what liberals said about Reagan in 1982-1983.

     Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:04pm

104. "The so-called green jobs initiative..."

     Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 1:49pm

     Hey, back in the early sixties, the computer dept. in the company I worked for, was viewed by many as peopled with head in the clouds nerds, paid to recreate. We all know how that turned out.

     Keep scoffing, dolt.

     Posted by Sorelish at 11/03/2009 @ 2:05pm

105. It's deeper than that - MELISSA is actually saying (this really is unbelievable!) there are not enough BLACK critics of the president, and that this dearth of black critics will lead Obama to do a Clinton-era redux of using the "Black Welfare Queen" and her pimp/drug dealer boyfriend as policy targets to keep whites from thinking he is favoring blacks!

     TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS!

     Posted by Metteyya at 12:42pm

     Yep, and quite possible if not likely. Apparently you weren't paying any attention whatsoever to the subtext --the dogwhistle, if you will-- of Obama's speeches in which he calls for black fathers to be responsible caretakers and bread winners for their children.

     It doesn't take a political whiz kid to figure out that the primary target of such speeches is the angry white male cohort.

     I don't at all enjoy telling the honest truth about Obama these days, but we need to face the fact that he will just as soon engage in the sort of DC concensus "leadership" as Bill --our last reasonably competent Repubublican prez-- did, and Hillary would have if she was prez. Frankly, the entire Washington scene has descended into a such a bathyscaphic depth of craven and crass behavior we should all rejoice if it simply imploded into nothingness.

     Obama, far from breing our savior, has only accelerated the descent via his failure to even lift a finger to change the disastrous course that Captain "Ahab" Cheney locked in a'fore abandonin' the submarine.

     And before I sign out, here's more from today's theme --Vietnam:

     www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIPan-rEQJA

     Time to bring back the draft. If only....

     Peace out, ~B

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:09pm

106. Welfare was seen by the black community as a means to populate their race, immorally and unethically, while at the same time getting whitey to pay the tab for their reckless behavior. Welfare queens had seven, eight and more babies, each one getting them a larger check for good ole uncle Sam, while the fathers, several different fathers in many cases, got off scott free.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/03/2009 @ 12:58pm

     That is some fucked up shit, dude. I've agreed with a lot of your other posts, but this is assnine.

     A "means to populate their race? Did you know that 50% of all black children in the US are killed by their mothers before they are even born?

     "Democrat policies have virtually destroyed the black community and have kept them down intentionally." Intentionally? Your belief in childish conspiracy theories is embarassing.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:15pm

107. "...but this is assnine."

     ~Darin the big fat troglodyte

     Sounds curiously similar to what you've been shovin' up yer derrier for years now.

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:21pm

108. Along somewhat similar lines, where's Kurt Vonnegut when you need 'em?

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:24pm

109. >>>Apparently you weren't paying any attention whatsoever to the subtext --the dogwhistle, if you will-- of Obama's speeches in which he calls for black fathers to be responsible caretakers and bread winners for their children.

     It doesn't take a political whiz kid to figure out that the primary target of such speeches is the angry white male cohort. <<<

     Sorry, B-KOOL, but I pay "close" attention to EVERY speech the president makes.

     And while there may be "some" angry-white-male appeal in the line you quoted, this REALLY was intended for BLACK FATHERS.

     Too often in black culture, family life is not respected - even shunned. You see this in rap lyrics concerning the "BABY MAMA" phenomena, as it wouldn't be cool to describe a woman as the mother of YOUR child, as this implies some responsibility on YOUR part.

     How would the song have to go, then, "My son's Mama"?

     As a LEADER of America AND black America, Obama was 100% correct for calling this out as a problem that needs to be addressed in the black community, and whether some angry white guy agrees with this is irrelevant.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 2:24pm

110. the subtext ... of Obama's speeches in which he calls for black fathers to be responsible caretakers and bread winners for their children.

     It doesn't take a political whiz kid to figure out that the primary target of such speeches is the angry white male cohort.

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:09pm

     Is it possible that President Obama's remarks (the ones that caused Jesse Jackson to want to cut his nuts off) were aimed at the fathers of the 70% of black children that are born out of wedlock?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:27pm

111. Wake up and smell the concrete, Budd Lite.

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:27pm

112. >>>"Hey, back in the early sixties, the computer dept. in the company I worked for, was viewed by many as peopled with head in the clouds nerds, paid to recreate. We all know how that turned out.

     Keep scoffing, dolt."<<<

     Sorelish @ 2:05pm -- There's no scoffing involved here, at least not on my part. There's no doubt jobs will be created. Heck, I see wind generator parts rolling down the highway all the time. (BTW, the jobs related to those parts were created by capitalists, long before today's Marxist ideologues jumped on the bandwagon.) I didn't write such nor did I imply such. I wrote that creation of those jobs, by a government-run "Green Jobs Initiative", will cost more money than those jobs will create. That's especially true for a government run by Marxists!! The proof is in the world-wide history of Marxism.

     Individuals create, governments inhibit/control creation. It is no different now than more than 230 years ago. That is why the American Constitution limits government.

     PS: Do you really have to resort to name-calling???

     Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 2:30pm

113. Sorelish @ 2:05pm

     I got my first post-college job in 1989. At that time there was a VP in a budget meeting questioning the hardware budget. He's on record asking, "Isn't this PC thing just a fad?"

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:36pm

114. >>>Individuals create, governments inhibit/control creation. It is no different now than more than 230 years ago. <<<

     I know this is the Republican mantra - especially since Reagan.

     Obama is going to CHANGE the way we think about government permanently.

     After Obama, most Americans will see governments as (1) the catalyst that stimulates economic growth and jobs creation, (2) the protector and defender of liberty, and (3) the counter force to greed, corruption, and selfishness that makes America an undesirable place to live.

     In Eight years you will see I LOVE GOVERNMENT bumper stickers on the cars of many people, including some "Republicans"!

     You will also see a RLC (Republican Leadership Council) emerge that tries to mimic Obama policies so that their party can stay politically viable in the next 30 years!

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 2:38pm

115. Troglodyte,

     First off, you've got no ground to stand on when it comes to being clear of racist remarks, Darin --you've made some really repugnant racist statements on many occasions on these blogspaces.

     To answer your query though, of course there is SOME (nonjaded) utility in Obama's reference to black fathers and the need for responsibility, but, as much commentary at Counterpunch by the likes of Ishmael Reed* and other superb black commentators has pointed out, this nation is so marinated in a racist milieu that it's nearly impossible for most of us to even see it when stares us in the face.

     *See, in particular, Reed's comments at Counterpunch regarding Soledad O'Brien's "Black in America" expose' that CNN has aired.

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:38pm

116. JoA, yes in the short term it will cost more but in the long term, it will not only create jobs but make money too, thats whats wrong with the whole lot of you rightys and some leftys too, no patience, non what so ever, everyone wants it NOW!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:39pm

117. In Eight years you will see I LOVE GOVERNMENT bumper stickers on the cars of many people, including some "Republicans"!

     You will also see a RLC (Republican Leadership Council) emerge that tries to mimic Obama policies so that their party can stay politically viable in the next 30 years!

     ~Budd Lite at 2:38pm

     Taking peyote and LSD to their peak experience. Welcome to the Vietnam years, Budd!

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:40pm

118. After Obama, most Americans will see governments as (1) the catalyst that stimulates economic growth and jobs creation, (2) the protector and defender of liberty, and (3) the counter force to greed, corruption, and selfishness that makes America an undesirable place to live.

     In Eight years you will see I LOVE GOVERNMENT bumper stickers on the cars of many people, including some "Republicans"!

     You will also see a RLC (Republican Leadership Council) emerge that tries to mimic Obama policies so that their party can stay politically viable in the next 30 years!

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 2:38pm

     Ok, enough Metteyya. You're making my ribs hurt with so much laughing!

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:41pm

119. As someone said above, it's not Obama's race that us Republican's have a problem with. Obama didn't win because he got all Democrats to the polls. He won because he convinced Independents that would typically vote Republican to vote for him. Now that those Independents are seeing that Obama is radically left they are no longer supporting him as evidenced by his drop in the polls. And by completely dismissing any attempt at genuine bipartisanship, he has the Conservatives, like myself, totally opposed to him and calling him out at every opportunity. Has nothing to do with him being black. It has everything to do with him taking advantage of a Democrat majority to push an extreme left agenda. Yeah, I know, "get over it", right? Well, that isn't going to happen. We aren't going to sit by quietly and let Obama do whatever he wants unimpeded - and you are witnessing that - and you are misinterpreting it as racism. There's an old saying "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Obama is playing with the big dogs now and he isn't going to get a free ride just so that we can prove ourselves to be a post racial society. If Hillary was in the White House with the same extreme left agenda, trust me, she'd be getting the same treatment. Lastly, you Liberals really need to drop the constant cry of racism. It just isn't so. And everytime you cry racism it just dilutes the negative conotation associated with the term. It's like the little boy that cried wolf - but in this story you called racism so many times that no one cared to hear it any more.

     Posted by waldopepper at 11/03/2009 @ 2:43pm

120. Here's the relevant Reed, Darin the troglodyte:

     I would classify CNN's "Black in America" as a stunt. In preparing for a sequel to the first "Black In America," which boosted the networks ratings (the O. J. trial saved CNN!), CNN rolled out the usual stereotypes about black Americans. Unmarried black mothers were exhibited, without mentioning that births to unmarried black women have plunged since 1976 more than that of any other ethnic group. Then we got some footage that implied that blacks as a group were homophobes even though Charles Blow, a statistician for The New York Times, recently published a chart showing that gays have the least to fear from blacks. Recently, the media perpetrated a hoax that blacks were responsible for the passage of Proposition 8, the California proposition that banned gay marriage. An academic study refuted this claim, but that didn't deter The New York Times from hiring Benjamin Schwarz to explain black homophobia. Schwarz is the writer who wrote in The Los Angeles Times that blacks who were victims of lynchings in the south were probably guilty.

     In the last "Black in America," Soledad O'Brien, CNN's designated tough love agent against the brothers and sisters, scolded a black man for not attending his daughter's birthday party. The aim of this scene was meant to humiliate black men as neglectful fathers. Ms. O'Brien won't be permitted by her employees to mention that 75% of white children will live at one time or another in a single parent household and that the Gov. of South Carolina's not showing up for Father's Day isn't just a lone aberration in "White America."

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:51pm

121. How would CNN promote a "White in America?" The thousands of meth addicts who have abandoned their children? The California rural and suburban white women who do more dope than Latino and black youth? The suburban Dallas white teenagers who are overdosing on "cheese" heroin? Why not? Can't get State Farm, Ford and MacDonald's to sponsor such a program? All of these companies are sponsoring "Black in America," the aim of which is to cast collective blame on blacks for the country's social problems. For ratings.

     During CNN's carnival act disguised as news, the scene of Zimbabwe's Prime Minster being urinated upon by a monkey while sitting in his garden drew snickers in the newsroom. This is what passes for coverage of the African continent by CNN.

     End quote.

     Whole thing: www.counterpunch.org/reed06292009.html

     ~So shove that up yer ass and smoke it, Darin. You too, Metteya...er...Budd Lite.

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:51pm

122. mettaya @ 2:38:

     That is not merely a Republican mantra. Reagan wasn't around when the notion of limited government first took hold in America. You do need to review American history. Sit in on the 7th-grade American History class at your local middle school.

     As for the rest of your entry: 1. Boy I sure hope the change in thought is not permanent, although that may be the one thing Obama didn't lie about during his candidacy. It is that very notion that energizes the dude. Too bad he doesn't really want to do good. 2. The minute, the very minute most Americans agree with those three statements you wrote, will be the very minute freedom dies. Those three, and the bumper sticker statement, define Marxism. 3. I wouldn't be surprised to see the RLC statement come to pass. It would be sad to see, but not surprising.

     Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 2:57pm

123. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:51pm

     While it is true that many poor whites face the same issues as poor blacks and Latinos, as a race they have ALWAYS controlled America!

     When you are in a control position, those at the bottom rung of your group ARE often over-looked. And I sincerely thank you B-KOOL for bringing this up.

     All I know is in a recent project in which I had to review a number of census districts out West that exceeded the 15% level of poverty, ALL of them were areas that had black or Latino majorities.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 3:00pm

124. >>>"JoA, yes in the short term it will cost more but in the long term, it will not only create jobs but make money too, thats whats wrong with the whole lot of you rightys and some leftys too, no patience, non what so ever, everyone wants it NOW!"<<< Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:39pm

     Wrong, Denise, on two counts. 1. It will cost jobs and money now AND in the future. Why will it cost jobs and money in the future? Debt. 2. There is not enough patience (nor other people's money) in the universe for marxism to work.

     Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 3:03pm

125. Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 2:57pm

     Do you really think Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford believed in "limited" government the way you have described it?

     Having sat in classes with Reagan advisers in college, it is clear that they did NOT like Nixon or Ford because they were not "true" conservatives.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 3:05pm

126. Do you really think Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford believed in "limited" government the way you have described it?

     Having sat in classes with Reagan advisers in college, it is clear that they did NOT like Nixon or Ford because they were not "true" conservatives.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 3:05pm

     Ford was a moderate Republican-that's about all you can say about the man.

     Nixon however was a Rockefeller liberal.

     It was Nixon who gave us:

     the EPA

     OSHA,

     Wage and price controls,

     Removing the Gold Standard

     gas rationing

     On domestic policy, Nixon was to the left of many Democrats.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 3:09pm

127. Enough with the "Marxism" JoA, that just shows me that anything you write is tainted with your teabagging gibberish.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 3:14pm

128. >>>"Do you really think Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford believed in "limited" government the way you have described it?

     Having sat in classes with Reagan advisers in college, it is clear that they did NOT like Nixon or Ford because they were not "true" conservatives."<<< Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 3:05pm

     Your college-mates were correct in that neither Nixon nor Ford practiced limited government very well. In that regard, it will be simple to find fault in most recent Presidents. However, the enlarged government envisioned by Obama, and you apparently, I'm sure dwarfs that of all recent Presidents combined. FDR and LBJ are the only ones who approach Obama's desire to run everything by government dictate. At least FDR and LBJ feigned dislike for Marxism, if they did not out rightly dislike the idea. Obama is a Marxist, and he has been most of his life! And Marxism is antithetical to the American Constitution. The two are diametrically opposed. That is why Obama advocates for fundamental transformational change. He cannot Constitutionally do what he wants to do. Any constitutional law professor can tell you that.

     The vast majority of respondents on this website think folks like me don't really understand that, which is why accusations of racism are so easily bandied about by Obama supporters, as if this were some kind of game of wits. But we do understand, and a large and growing number of Americans also understand.

     Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 3:44pm

129. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 2:36pm

     As a nineteen year old working at the aforementioned company, can't say that I was all that interested in the new tech integrated into a generally antiquated workplace. Although curious to me, I didn't find it threatening.

     Some depts. were loaded with high tech equipment of the day, others with antiques seldom seen even at that time in other firms.

     In short, it was a workplace integrating the old (lots of near retirement folk) who were eager to share their knowledge, alongside the new (sharp younger people) who were a bit more guarded in reaching out to inform if in a position to do so & required a bit more care e.g. being somewhat complaisant & non-threatening.

     Old guys who'd started at the bottom & worked their way up & young upstarts with a new vision. A transitional era that started to open up to minorities a few years later.

     Posted by Sorelish at 11/03/2009 @ 3:44pm

130. Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 3:44pm

     Obama does NOT want to run everything by government dictate - just the things that the private sector is NOT capable of running very well.

     HMO's for example are a SCAM business that only makes money if they REFUSE to provide healthcare to the sick if they can't profit from it. Most decent people think this is wrong, as sickness is not something you can entirely control.

     The Wall Street elite have also proven that the private sector - if left to its own devices - can NOT run the US banking system without SUBSTANTIAL government oversight. They nearly ran our banking system into the ground by taking on more and more risk to satisfy over-sized appetites for profits.

     What do you think the average guy on the street who makes about 40k thinks about a 28-year-old Wall Streeter running the banking system into the ground so he can have a CHANCE at making 100 million?

     Just like YOU say the government can't run everything, it is OBVIOUS to most Americans that the private sector can NOT run everything either.

     There needs to be a proper "mix" of government and private sector action, and Obama at least recognizes this. But when you are talking to a bunch of Reagan ideologues who HATE government, it is difficult to find bi-partisan common ground on what should be the appropriate mix of government and private sector action.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/03/2009 @ 3:59pm

131. Mask,

     1. Is Medicare "socialism"? If so, why don't Repubs propose eliminating it? If not...why not?

     ANSWER: Regardless of what Medicare is or is not it is not wise to grow government further.

     2. Your own Republican Party doesn't say global warming is "not man made" or "a hoax". So WHO is saying it's "not a problem to begin with"???

     ANSWER: Plenty of scientists who you on the left label as "deniers". Many have been identified at various times on this site.

     3. General Petraeus supported closing Gitmo. Why is he wrong?

     ANSWER: Because it would be a mistake to let terrorists who want to kill us free...so they can go kill us.

     4. If the CIA did nothing wrong...why can't we investigate?

     ANSWER: Why conduct witch hunts and investigations when none are warrented?

     5. Outside of you 30%ers, few people HERE or in Europe don't think Obama shouldn't have said what the US did under BUSH was wrong. BTW, most Czechs and Poles didn't want the missile shield either.

     ANSWER: It is not relevant what Europeans think, on this issue...and don't forget Obama was apologizing for all American "sins", not just those he and you think happened under George W. Bush....so I think the number that are not happey with the apologizing would be greater than 30%.

     6. How did we "diss" Europe by "telling them we're no better than them"?!?!?!?!?!??

     ANSWER: I should have broken up 6 into 2 separate comments. 6a) we dissed some people in Europe 6b) separate issue- Obama doesn't care about American exceptionalism.

     7. Naturally, not saying "Israel do whatever you want to the Palestinians, we don't care" is being "anti-Israel", right?

     ANSWER: You are misrepresenting the whole situation. Israel is not "doing whatever it wants"...it is defending itself.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 4:16pm

132. mettaya @ 3:59pm:

     The private sector is very capable of running almost everything well. Exceptions include: creation and enforcement of laws, deployment of military for the protection of the nation, collection of revenues for the purpose of funding the government. You know, the things outlined by the Constitution.

     Strange how our healthcare system did just fine (and still does, except for the cost) for a couple of hundred years. When HMOs are caught, enforce the laws.

     Wall Street running the banking system into the ground? You know it wasn't just Wall Street. Republicans were too laizze faire in their lawful oversight of the relationship between Wall Street (Goldman Sachs, especially) and Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, et al. As for the 28-year old, it was more like the 58- and 68-year old (you know, those who were easily moving back and forth between the government and private jobs) who thought they could game the system.

     I think those Reagan ideologues you derisively mentioned would agree with you that some government is required. As a matter of fact, I know it. The American Constitution was written to provide for a limited government, not no government. The balance between government, the private sector, and the people was struck a long time ago, and people like Obama have been trying to unbalance it ever since.

     Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 4:39pm

133. Gunslinger1 wrote: I've said it time and time again. Barack Obama was the most improbable Presidential candidate since the days of the reconstruction. His election was largely the result of a protest against GWB, his war and his arrogance, which was played up for years by the leftwing media hacks.

     Gunslinger1 wrote: Now, it's not too late for Obama to be a two term President. However, in order to do so, he must first stand for something besides big government, especially at this time. It's not propaganda for the republicans to point out what the democrat's programs are going to do to our kids and grandkids. there is no longer any reason for them to dream, especially if HC and cap and trade become law.

     Gunslinger1 wrote: Obama must also show that he can lead in foreign policy without catering to the far left who are invested in America's defeat in Afghanistan. He should stop his cowardly dithering and give his Generals what they need to provide for a favorable outcome in that crucial part of the world.

     Gunslinger1 wrote: He is still on the tube almost every day but he says nothing of substance. More is less in my opinion. He should go on tv and announce that he will not sign any legislation on HC reform that will provide public money for abortions. He should also reassert that he will not sign any HC legislation that adds one dime to the deficit which would effectively kill Pelosi's silly bill. He must also begin the process of keeping his campaign promise of ending gridlock in Washington by inviting the republicans to the HC reform table. That have excellant ideas that need to be considered. Reasonable, not radical HC reform should be the goal. Bipartisan suport for a compromise bill should be the outcome, an outcome that American's can support and give Obama cr

     Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 4:40pm

134. Ms. H-L writes"For example, one of the most consistent finding of public opinion research is how African American partisanship differs from that of whites."

     Yes they always support 95%+ whichever party is handing out the most goodies.

     It's amazing to me how African American partisanship is so homogeneous whereas whites tend to have much varied opinions. I'll leave that to the experts like Ms. H-L to explain but it would appear that the common bond is race related. So who are the racists?

     Posted by willieboy at 11/03/2009 @ 5:02pm

135. Obama is one of the most racially divisive politicians in many years ... far worse than George Wallace, Bob Byrd or Stom Thurmond ... because he is a stealth racist.

     Posted by usr105 at 11/03/2009 @ 5:26pm

136. Obama is one of the most racially divisive politicians in many years ... far worse than George Wallace, Bob Byrd or Stom Thurmond ... because he is a stealth racist.

     Posted by usr105 at 11/03/2009 @ 5:26pm

     Obama's only divisive becasue the right wing refuse to accept a black Democrat in The white House. Bush was more devisive that Obama was.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 5:42pm

137. Gunslinger1 wrote: "I've said it time and time again. Barack Obama was the most improbable Presidential candidate since the days of the reconstruction. His election was largely the result of a protest against GWB, his war and his arrogance, which was played up for years by the leftwing media hacks. --- Don't think it has anything to do with the fact that th man, who may be the best politician in a century, ran against an over-the-hill candidate, who sold his soul to get the nomination of a party that distrusted him then right-out-of-the-box nominated an ignorant, under-educated, un-traveled imbecile for VP... give me a break...

     Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 5:55pm

138. Gunslinger1 wrote: "Now, it's not too late for Obama to be a two term President. However, in order to do so, he must first stand for something besides big government, especially at this time. It's not propaganda for the republicans to point out what the democrat's programs are going to do to our kids and grandkids. there is no longer any reason for them to dream, especially if HC and cap and trade become law." --- Last time I checked it was a conservative position to protect the environment and not to dump hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants into oru air and water. If we don't do that what are we leaving to our children and grandchildren. I'll discuss heal care later but I submit that "global warming" rests on the most complicated science, while it is difficult for a lay person (among whom I count myself even though I have a fairly strong tech & science background). I admit that it depends upon who one believes, but the conservative view would be to invest on the side that resists the greatest risk. If the majority of scientists, who do support the theory of global warming, are correct, we are on the verge of a big mess which may already be too late to prevent. This majority opinion may not be entirely correct but the sincerity of the effort of the scientific community to get it right deserves more respect than utterly unqualified commentators, like Limbaugh, give it.

     Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 5:56pm

139. Gunslinger1 wrote: "Obama must also show that he can lead in foreign policy without catering to the far left who are invested in America's defeat in Afghanistan. He should stop his cowardly dithering and give his Generals what they need to provide for a favorable outcome in that crucial part of the world."

     --- You know NOTHING about Afghanistan. How do I know that? I know because people who do know the region intimately are far less certain about the correct course of action. What you call "dithering" is a phrase taken from chicken-hawk, draft-dodger Dick Cheney --- the known coward and now-known perjurer (see transcripts of his FBI interrogation about the outing of CIA operative V. P. --- the man is largely responsible for lying America into the worst military miscalculation in our history (i.e. to engage in an unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq, while abandoning the essential military mission in Afghanistan for 6 years). As you said it is a "crucial part of the world." That is why it is important to do the thing right. To win the war by the battle-plan General McChrystal has outlined will necessitate a blood-bath. It will involve sending US troops into the worst imaginable conditions against what may be the best guerilla fighters in the world - in their back-yard. It will also involve civilian casualties which will stiffen the resistance and drive people to the Taliban. That still might be the right way to go, but the cost in blood and treasure will be very high, and there are equally strong arguments for a different course that could prove more effective at far less cost and with less blowback toward the Taliban. The man upon whose shoulders every one of those lives rest, has an obligation to take the time to evaluate every option. You insult yourself.

     Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 5:58pm

140. Gunslinger1 wrote: "He is still on the tube almost every day but he says nothing of substance. More is less in my opinion. He should go on tv and announce that he will not sign any legislation on HC reform that will provide public money for abortions. He should also reassert that he will not sign any HC legislation that adds one dime to the deficit which would effectively kill Pelosi's silly bill.

     --- There another quack "conservative" who wants our government out of everybody's business except when his religious opinion gives him the divine right to tell every woman in the world what she should do with the contents of her womb. You have no conservative principles; you have opinions and your opinions --- lacking principle, supporting data and compassion --- suck. Before I'd think that you have the right to call Speaker Pelosi's Heal Care bill "silly," I ask you to list five reasons why America pays far more for health care than any other nation on earth, yet our measured health outcomes are 37th --- behind Slovenia. People with terrible health care options marching in the street for the right of predatory and parasitic health insurance companies to victimize them is like slaves fighting for the South. What you wrote makes me think of a line from an old friend's book of aphorisms: "Man is like a dog with a leash in his mouth, looking for a master." (Clair Horner) Gunslinger1 wrote: "He must also begin the process of keeping his campaign promise of ending gridlock in Washington by inviting the republicans to the HC reform table. That have excellent ideas that need to be considered. Reasonable, not radical HC reform should be the goal. Bipartisan support for a compromise bill should be the outcome, an outcome that American's can support and give Obama credit for."

     Posted by JoeyTranchina at 11/03/2009 @ 5:59pm

141. I'll leave that to the experts like Ms. H-L to explain but it would appear that the common bond is race related. So who are the racists?

     Posted by willieboy at 11/03/2009 @ 5:02pm

     It's quite simple really. Which parties instituted and implemented slavery and segregation? That will answer your question.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:01pm

142. usr105, where do you people come from???? Go back to it. Please.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/03/2009 @ 6:02pm

143. uraeus360 says:

     "............We have to remember that racism in this country is deeply ingrained. You can see how readily "Americans" both Black and White are quick to blame Obama for not solving all of the problems that the neo-cons have created as a result of their facist policies............"

     Then Shingo says:

     ".....Obama's only divisive becasue the right wing refuse to accept a black Democrat in The white House....."\

     Those canards have been disproven on this thread and on many other threads on this site in the last year, whenever this issue comes up.

     Also, what uraeus360 needs to remember is that there were no "fascist" policies in the previous administration, hence no problems created by "neocons" implementing them.

     I did notice that the previous administration was working to protect America from another Sept. 11. How successful that will turn out to be is now dependent upon the degree to which the current administration undermines/undoes those efforts.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 6:03pm

144. Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 4:39pm |

     Welcome to the blog! You're doing a great job of representing conservative thought.

     BTW, this blog has a few thoughtful traditional liberals. Most of the rest are either radical leftists or anti-semites.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 6:06pm

145. "Those canards have been disproven on this thread and on many other threads on this site in the last year, whenever this issue comes up."

     First, look up the word canard before you use it out of context. This wasn't disproven. Argued yes, but not disproven.

     When you have th GOp ciruclatign emails with pictures of Obama with a bone through hsi nose, or encouraging the birther wingnuts, it's pretty sound evidence that the those on the right cannot accept the idea of a black, Democrat President.

     "Also, what uraeus360 needs to remember is that there were no "fascist" policies in the previous administration"

     Of course there were.

     1. The idea of free speech zones, which was implement by the previous administration, which implies that free speech is not permitted outside of those zones.

     "I did notice that the previous administration was working to protect America from another Sept. 11."

     Really? If so, why didn't they even try to prevent the first one? Or perhaps the reason they were trying to protect America from another Sept. 11, is because they allowed the firs one to happen.

     In fact, the previous administration allowed the perpetrators to get away and went after a country that had no role in 911. Clearly, they were more interested in starting unnecessary wars than preventing another 911.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:13pm

146. Welcome to the blog! You're doing a great job of representing conservative thought.

     BTW, this blog has a few thoughtful traditional liberals. Most of the rest are either radical leftists or anti-semites.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 6:06pm

     Yeah, Larry doesn't invite radical leftists or anti-semites to his clan meetings but you might get lucky JoA.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:15pm

147. Posted by JoA at 11/03/2009 @ 4:39pm

     "The private sector is very capable of running almost everything well."

     Yeah, I noticed the banking industry is a riot.

     "Strange how our healthcare system did just fine (and still does, except for the cost) for a couple of hundred years."

     Yet all military vets and politicians opt for government run health care. Very strange indeed.

     The healthcare system is so wonderful that the wealthiest country in the world comes in 40th for health care.

     "Republicans were too laizze faire in their lawful oversight ..."

     But isn't oversight a government program? Oh that's right, oversight was being run by the banks themselves.

     "The balance between government, the private sector, and the people was struck a long time ago, and people like Obama have been trying to unbalance it ever since."

     Actually, any so called balance between government and the private sector is a myth and has been for a long time. That's why there are thousands of lobbyists in Washington. Clearly, the private sector feels that government involvement is an essential component of their business model.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:23pm

148. Shingo,

     Who in the GOP circulating Obama emails? Who, specifically......was it anybody that in anyway was representative of the party, or officially spoke for the party?.......was this in any way representative of the majority of Republicans? Or are you "morphing" the actions of a few to be representative of all?

     On the subject of Sept. 11, and future terror, as has been explained to you now probably about a zillion times:

     1. The Clinton administration weakened the military and put the "wall" in place that did not allow for intelligence and criminal justice agencies to share information. Thus the "dots" to connect that could have foretold specific information about the upcoming attack were not there to connect.

     2. The Bush administration was in the process of evaluating the approach that had been taken previously towards terror threats, with the goal being a more effective approach to deal with them. Do differently than what had been done in the past. Because of the paragraph above the attack came before any new approach could be implemented.

     3. That August 6 memo did not tell anybody anything that anybody did not already know. It offered up no specific information that could have been acted upon.

     4. We attacked Iraq to prevent future attacks....we were removing somebody (Saddam) who would have begun making WMD again and who would have gotten it into the hands of terrorist through sale or gift, and those terrorists would have used the weapons against us.

     You would have to explain, since you already know items 1-4 above, why you continually ignore it and reject it. So far I have never seen a cogent or credible answer from you as to why, on this subject.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 6:31pm

149. People are suffering from the leading cause of disappointment: expectation. What did you think was going to happen, when he or any president was elected? A U.S. President has a wider responsibility to defend the Constitution, and their responsibilities derive from that. Sometimes that might mean being elected into a catastrophe, and being forced to play ball with a bunch of low-life finance executives since they are holding all of the key rings. Many decades of failures took place for our marketplace to become so deregulated, leading to this disaster. Trying to blame the guy who had to finalize work started by his predecessor is the basest of irrational human socializations. Ironically, it's also his job to absorb some of the fallout for things that he didn't create, he knows this. That's why he always looks unperturbed, he knows what his job is. We are lucky to have an actual, factual constitutional professor and lawyer in the White House. Not only that a family man in the prime of his life. Furthermore, someone who has had problems that can't be solved with money. This guy knows what he is doing. Things will get done the right way, even if you don't agree with them.

     Posted by Milhaus at 11/03/2009 @ 6:43pm

150. "Who in the GOP circulating Obama emails?"

     http://tinyurl.com/lllt4z http://tinyurl.com/yhlo8uf http://tinyurl.com/ncle4g

     "1. The Clinton administration weakened the military and put the "wall" in place that did not allow for intelligence and criminal justice agencies..."

     Rubbish on all counts. Clinton spent more on the military than Reagan and Bush. If the worlds most powerful military and largest intelligence apparatus is not capable of preventing the attacks on 911, then something is clearly wrong.

     "2. The Bush administration was in the process of evaluating the approach that had been taken previously towards terror threats"

     Rubbish again. The Bush administration demonstrated that is was not remotely interested in terror threats, which is why it ignored dozens of warnings, including the August 2001 PDB.

     The 911 attacks could easily have been prevented with the existing procedures.

     "3. That August 6 memo did not tell anybody anything that anybody did not already know."

     Yet, the Bush administration did NOTHING to increase security or heighten the threat level.

     "4. We attacked Iraq to prevent future attacks...."

     Absolute rubbish. Iraq was not involved in ANY attacks. Saddam had never armed terrorist through sale or gift.

     So far I have never seen a cogent or credible answer from you as to why, on this subject."

     I've provided them on numerous occasions. You're simply incapable of accepting reality.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:55pm

151. This guy knows what he is doing.

     Posted by Milhaus at 11/03/2009 @ 6:43pm

     Yep, he found you as a devout follower! Or, is it the other way around. No matter, stud, you're a five-star devotee!

     Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 7:03pm

152. This guy knows what he is doing.

     Posted by Milhaus at 11/03/2009 @ 6:43pm

     If that's the case, when we're really screwed.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 7:06pm

153. Shingo,

     Reality is not in any way connected with anything you write.

     Exactly as I said above, you have taken the actions of two (2) Republicans and "morphed" them to include the entire GOP.

     Your credibility totally went into the toilet with that one.

     You said (about preventing Sept 11) "something is clearly wrong"......and I explained what it was.

     But then you did not acknowledge how the wall put up by the Clinton justice department, preventing exchange of information between intelligence and law enforcement, prevented dots from surfacing that could have been connected.

     If the Bush administration was re-evaluating the approach to terror threats, in order to make them more effective at dealing with them, then obviously your contention that they were not interested in dealing with them is NOT true.

     I said we went into Iraq to prevent future attacks, so you just cycle back and say Iraq was not involved in any attacks.

     Of course not, they were prevented before Saddam had a chance to re-arm himself with WMD and provide them to terrorists!!!

     You say Saddam had never armed a terrorist.....you apparently were willing to take the chance that he never would do so.....playing Russian roulette with people's lives.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 7:22pm

154. Haven't the polls been closed on the east coast for over 30 minutes?

     You folks are slipping... Not one charge of voter fraud yet?!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/03/2009 @ 7:33pm

155. Someone who bases their argument on hypotheticals, and presents them are facts should not be preaching about reality.

     There are countless other examples of racism in the Republican party, but more importantly, none of the perpetrators were fired for their behavior, so it was condoned.

     Your explanation for the 911 failures did not address the point. We spend half a trillion on defense every year. Your are arguing that if we'd spent more, 911 would not have happened. Hillarious.

     The Clinton justice department put up no walls. FISA was already active and available and could have been used for wiretaps. There was nothing preventing exchange of information between intelligence and law enforcement.

     The Bush administration was NOT re-evaluating approaches to terror threats, ihey were ignoring them entirely. Condi didn't even know who Al Qaeda was when she went to work for Bush. John Ashcroft was too busy going after pornographers to be bothered with terrorist threats.

     Iraq had nothing to do with any attacks. There was no evidence they were planning any. Iraq was no more likely to attack us than Brazil, which is why Doug Feith, one of Bush's appointees, suggested attacking Brazil to show the world we were serious.

     While there is no basis for it in reality, historically or factually, your entire thesis is based on a hypothetical argument that Saddam might have re-armed himself with WMD and might have provide them to terrorists, even though he never provided WMD to terrorist. Meanwhile, the terrorist who attached us, or were involved in the attack, were allowed to getaway. Pure Bizzaro wingnut logic. Let's go after someone who never attacked us, and has no means to attack us, while letting the guys who did attack us get away. That'll work!!

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 7:43pm

156. "You say Saddam had never armed a terrorist.....you apparently were willing to take the chance that he never would do so.....playing Russian roulette with people's lives."

     Yeah, maybe we should have attacked Brazil after all right sjchermak? They never attacked us either, but hey, we can't chance that they'll never would do so right ? Not attacking Brazil is playing Russian roulette with people's lives.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 7:46pm

157. Haven't the polls been closed on the east coast for over 30 minutes?

     You folks are slipping... Not one charge of voter fraud yet?!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/03/2009 @ 7:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     The GOP won in VA, so that means everything was legitimate. This is neo-con logic 101, where have you been.

     Posted by Milhaus at 11/03/2009 @ 7:52pm

158. Openly anti-white and anti-Semitic sentiment has manifested in many left wing, pro-Obama publications/media of late. It doesn't help Obama that he and his followers look like radicals w.r.t. racial issues. Plus, he seems to take the side of aggrieved special interests (including the super rich and welfare class) but not those of the middle class who elected him. Strange.

     On the bright side, Obama's better than most of Europe's major leaders. Though that's not saying a whole lot.

     Posted by Zeev_Goldstein at 11/03/2009 @ 7:53pm

159. It doesn't help Obama that he and his followers look like radicals w.r.t. racial issues.

     Posted by Zeev_Goldstein at 11/03/2009 @ 7:53pm

     It doesn't hurt either, considering that the only people who believe this are racial right wing racists.

     As for anti Semtism, the right wing has always been the playground for anti Semites. The right only became enamored with Israel when they saw it as a tool to back Arabs states and the Evangelical loons convinced themselves that Israel might convince God to re-schedule the rapture and move it forward on his Holy Blackberry.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 8:00pm

160. Barack the Magic Negro became the new theme for the GOP, but hey, any talk of racism on the right is a figment of the left's imagination.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 8:03pm

161. "It doesn't hurt either, considering that the only people who believe this are racial right wing racists."

     Believe as you will, sir. I'm, I like to think, a centrist.

     "As for anti Semtism, the right wing has always been the playground for anti Semites."

     Don't make me laugh. Wolfowitz, Abrams, Fleisher, Feith, Perle, etc...They're anti-Semites now?! Ha, ha.

     No, they were better for Israel than the Democrats. The neocons just didn't govern effectively, but they were good for Israel.

     And, if you're referring to neo-nazis in the above comment they are not right wing.

     Posted by Zeev_Goldstein at 11/03/2009 @ 8:10pm

162. "Believe as you will, sir. I'm, I like to think, a centrist. "

     Most racial right wing racists do.

     "Don't make me laugh. Wolfowitz, Abrams, Fleisher, Feith, Perle, etc...They're anti-Semites now?! Ha, ha."

     Most of them came are Trotskyites,unless you consider Trotsky to be right wing?

     "No, they were better for Israel than the Democrats. "

     First, being pro Israel is not the same thing as being pro Jewish.

     Secondly, being an enabler to dangerous and disastrous policies doesn't make you anyone's friend.

     "And, if you're referring to neo-nazis in the above comment they are not right wing."

     But they are pro Israeli, which kinda debunks your pro Israeli thesis doesn't it?

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 8:34pm

163. Obama is receiving the whirlwind he sowed. Something like 95% of black Americans voted for Obama. Did they all agree with his politics? Or did they vote for him because he was black? If it was the latter, then it must be logically o.k. for white voters to vote against a black man because he is black. Less than 20% of the US population is black. On this basis no black man can ever expect to win the White House again. That will be Obamas legacy.

     Posted by floater at 11/04/2009 @ 04:26am

164. "Barack the Magic Negro" - how is that racist again? Any song title or song with the word negro in it is now racist? Pathetic thin-skinned morons.

     Posted by floater at 11/04/2009 @ 04:41am

165. Shingo,

     You say "......The Clinton justice department put up no walls. FISA was already active and available and could have been used for wiretaps. There was nothing preventing exchange of information between intelligence and law enforcement....."

     Shingo, you don't kid around...you stick to your beliefs no matter what.

     The wall is a matter of public knowledge....it is not up for debate that such a "wall" existed.

     Gorelick's Wall The Commissioner belongs in the witness chair. Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:01 A.M. EDT http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956

     "At issue is the pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators--a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant "the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." The Attorney General explained:"

     "In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

     "When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

     "At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand "

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 04:44am

166. Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 4:16pm

     #1-7...and not a single direct answer to my questions.

     Says all that needs to be said.

     Posted by Mask at 11/04/2009 @ 08:16am

167. sjchermak -- time to drain the cokepepsi from your veins.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 08:56am

168. Mask,

     They were direct answers, but as always, you frame the response or classify it however you see fit.

     Standard Mask-like behavior.

     I suppose it is good to see you are consistent and not losing your abilities to twist, distort, take out of context, confuse, ignore, etc.....

     People would worry about you and worry if something had happened to you, otherwise.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 09:04am

169. Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 09:04am

     Example?-

     I asked- "1. Is Medicare "socialism"? If so, why don't Repubs propose eliminating it? If not...why not? "

     You responded - "Regardless of what Medicare is or is not it is not wise to grow government further. "

     How is that a "direct answer", sjcher? "Yes, it is...and we should eliminate it" or "Yes, it is...but it's too popular to eliminate" would be direct answers.

     Even "No, it isn't...and here's why _____" would be one.

     Posted by Mask at 11/04/2009 @ 09:15am

170. "this is soooooooooo 20th century.......

     time to grow up, kiddies."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 12:01pm

     Waaayy past time. I love it when the talk turns to racism. Soon it will be people with small ears or the wrong designer label.

     Here, Frosty, this one's for you...

     http://tinyurl.com/lhxhp

     Posted by FLaim at 11/04/2009 @ 10:10am

171. "Most racial right wing racists do." - Shingo

     I suppose you think taunts and invective are substitutes for reasoned discussion. I do not.

     Posted by Zeev_Goldstein at 11/04/2009 @ 2:18pm

172. Everyone should take a look at Drudge and check out the new eleven videos that have surfaced showing us what is going on in our elementary schools. Children as young as five years old are being indoctrinated through song and rap as though Obama was Chairman Mao himself. It's pretty disturbing stuff.

     This article from Ms. Lacewell is about racial divide. I wonder what she thinks of these videos.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/04/2009 @ 2:42pm

173. Gunslinger, get a life!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/04/2009 @ 3:15pm

174. Denise29,

     You apparently see nothing wrong with kids in school singing songs to the president in a manner typical of what they would be doing in a communist country.

     As far as I know, kids in school have never been singing songs in that manner before, regarding any President.

     I do not remember doing that when I was a kid, in public school.

     In the United States of America, people do not worship the President the way people are taught to do in communist countries.

     Thus, kids do not and have not in the past engaged in the sort of behavior we are seeing too much of now.

     You do not think it is an effort at indoctrination? I guess not.

     You demand that gunslinger1 get a life. I know, people are not supposed to worry what is happening to kids in public school, much less question what is happening to them.

     People, I guess, are supposed to entrust their kid's education totally to the teachers and educators, and if these educators wish to indoctrinate the kids into liberalism and Obama-worship, then the parents are supposed to just let it happen and not worry about it, much less question it.

     That I guess is the way it works in your world.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 4:07pm

175. Mask,

     You need to step back and remember that the whole purpose of your questions is to distort the issues to begin with, and deflect them into other arenas.

     The purpose of your question on Medicare was not because you are seeking information, but because you, as a lib, want to deflect the argument away from why the socialist medicine being proposed now should be rejected, onto turf you feel is more favorable to you.

     In this case, this is not Mask-like behavior, this is a tactic any lib would use.

     When you ask about Medicare, if you got back an answer from me that Medicare should be eliminated than we are now arguing about that rather than the current proposals.......if I say it is not socialism but the current proposals are then you are saying I am inconsistent and a hypocrite.

     And while we are arguing about those two above we are no longer debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the current proposals.

     Which is your intention.

     Nice try...

     Regardless of whether Medicare should or should never have happened, it is in place now and people have become dependent on it.....that puts it (whether it should or should not continue or whether it should have been in the first place) in a totally different category.

     There is no need to create further dependency on government......instead of the socialist medicine with all the "benefits" such as long wait times for all, etc.....make changes to the current system.

     That is, eliminate frivolous lawsuits, allow people to tailor coverage, and allow purchase of insurance plans accross state lines....These will lower the costs... market oriented reforms.

     Then assist those who still need help so they can buy the insurance.

     Rather than trash a system that provides the best medical care in the world.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 4:18pm

176. In fact, the previous administration allowed the perpetrators to get away and went after a country that had no role in 911.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:13pm

     Actually, many of the lieutenants, planners, and logistical people involved in 9/11 are dead or captured.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 5:22pm

177. i see a lot of bitching about "indoctrination" from people who no doubt have stared at a piece of cloth and recited a short poem thousands of times in their lives....HELLO!

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/04/2009 @ 5:31pm

178. What gunny, when you were in school you never said the pledge to the flag? Never sang a song about how much you love America? Never pledged to god and country in the boyscouts? Never were told to respect your teachers and elders and authority, ie the PRESIDENT????? G-g Gunny talk about being indoctrinated, I'd say your being indoctrinated by faux news, what do you say about that???

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/04/2009 @ 5:44pm

179. Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 04:44am

     sjchermak

     "The wall is a matter of public knowledge....it is not up for debate that such a "wall" existed."

     Too funny. All you can cite is a fringe right wing source that begins with the line "We predicted Democrats would use the 9/11 Commission for partisan purposes", and expect that to be a factual and unbiased account? Really? How desperate can you be?

     There was NOTHING stopping the perpetrators from the 911 attacks from being stopped.

     Ashcroft was one of the most derelict in his duties to [prevent the 911 attacks, so any article that cites Ashcroft as an authority is fundamentally flawed.

     Got anything better?

     Here. Chew on this for a while:

     9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable http://tinyurl.com/ybpsxsn

     TIME.com: Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? http://tinyurl.com/f9ra

     U.S. Spy Chief: 9/11 'Could Have Been Prevented' http://tinyurl.com/yde2xe8

     9/11 hijackers could have been stopped, says ex-aide http://tinyurl.com/ybmc4hh

     Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 5:45pm

180. You apparently see nothing wrong with kids in school singing songs to the president in a manner typical of what they would be doing in a communist country.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 4:07pm

     You right wingers didn't seem to mind when children attending Jesus camp were praying to cardboard cutouts of George Bush at ted Haggard's Jesus Camp.

     What hypocrites you are!

     "As far as I know, kids in school have never been singing songs in that manner before, regarding any President."

     Well, now you know differently.

     "I do not remember doing that when I was a kid, in public school."

     If you don't remember Jesus Camp, then how can you be expected to remember your days at public school?

     That's the trouble with the right. They have such short attention spans.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 5:57pm

181. Actually, many of the lieutenants, planners, and logistical people involved in 9/11 are dead or captured.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 5:22pm

     Except for the number 1 guy.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 6:00pm

182. Everyone should take a look at Drudge and check out the new eleven videos that have surfaced showing us what is going on in our elementary schools. Children as young as five years old are being indoctrinated through song and rap as though Obama was Chairman Mao himself. It's pretty disturbing stuff.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/04/2009 @ 2:42pm

     Is it as disturbing as the videos of Jesus Camp gunslinger1? Where children were indoctrinated to pray to a cardboard cut-out of Dubya?

     These were run by none other than the mother of all hypocrites, Ted Harggard, who bashed gays in public while playing hide the salami and snorting meth in private.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 6:08pm

183. Ya Shingo, the rightys have the attention span of a gnat, been saying that for years now, but to compare school children singing about patriotism, to being like singing to chairman mao is just ridiculous, truly, just insanely ridiculous!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/04/2009 @ 7:40pm

184. Shingo,

     You are overdoing it......I am talking about what occurs now in public school.....regarding indoctrination of kids......whose parents have little or no say on whether the indoctrination should happen or not....or probably do not even know it has happened until afterwords...

     You are talking about "Jesus camp".......I have no idea what "Jesus camp" is nor do I know why I was supposed to have known that.........

     It apparently is some camp that people voluntarily sent their kids to.......that certainly did not get mentioned to any great degree in the public domain.....but of course I am supposed to have been as fixated on it as you were or you are......

     Public schools (where Obama indoctrination occurs now) never sent kids involuntarily to "Jesus camp"....they made no mention of the availability of this camp in my public school.

     Obviously, we are talking apples and oranges here....and you have come up with a totally weak argument to try and counteract the discussion about Obama indoctrination in public school.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 8:50pm

185. Shingo,

     By the way, as you will remember from above, the "fringe right wing source" that you say I used for an article about the wall between intelligence and law enforcement was THE WALL STREET JOURNAL!

     When I pulled that information, there were links I found to other articles as well, but because of the word limits on these posts, I did not include them because I wanted to include the quotations from the article that show the potential damage done by the existence of that "wall".

     That is public knowledge, in the public domain, documenting an event that actually happened....(the inability to discover further what was on the terrorists' computer)......

     But you just blow it off as from the "fringe right wing".

     I could paste links to other articles, but if you declare the Wall Street Journal to be "fringe right wing", there is hardly any point, is there?

     This classification of yours of my source as "fringe right wing" is helpful in one way.....it shows your mind is closed like a steel trap.

     I am not going to bother looking at your links, I am assuming they are from the fringe left. No reason not to, even though you will post back and say I do not have an open mind, it doesn't matter because this argument is getting ridiculous. I keep remembering you have no credibility with your postings..........

     ......after all, earlier on you posted links to show that the GOP was racist towards President Obama, and the links were of two people (2) in a country of over 300 million people, and you morphed the actions of two people (2) to be representative of the entire GOP.

     I should put you on ignore, but your posts are so idiotic they are amusing.

     Most people know about the existence of the wall, it was a matter of public record.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/04/2009 @ 9:15pm

186. Is it as disturbing as the videos of Jesus Camp gunslinger1? Where children were indoctrinated to pray to a cardboard cut-out of Dubya?

     Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 6:08pm

     Jesus Camp is an elective choice. And yes, that's pretty messed up. As a conservative, I don't feel obligated to defend every kook thing "my side" does. You, on the other hand, seem to think you have to.

     Having teachers, government employees no less, lead children in songs praising a mere man in the manner that would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain, or Communist China is another thing entirely.

     It's creepy. And if your reaction to something with disturbingly fascist undertones is to merely say, "Well look at what you Republicans did!", then you are tacitly not holding your side to a higher standard than the people you profess to despise.

     Rather than say, "Yeah, that's way out of line", you are more comfortable with trying to find moral equivalence? If it's wrong, and you know it is, then just say so. Period.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 9:20pm

187. The Messiah & his true believers, can do no wrong, so it has been written....and so it shall be.

     Like the aliens in "V"....their only side, is the good side, so it shall be broadcast.

     Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 9:35pm

188. Here, Frosty, this one's for you...

     http://tinyurl.com/lhxhp

     Posted by FLaim at 11/04/2009 @ 10:10am

     thank you so much.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 11:25pm

189. Soon it will be people with small ears or the wrong designer label.

     Posted by FLaim at 11/04/2009 @ 10:10am

     The key players in the island's traditional history are the Hanau-eepe and the Hanau-momoko. These terms are often translated ‘long-ears' and ‘short-ears' respectively. However, some researchers say that this is erroneous, and that the correct translations are ‘stocky race' and ‘slender race'. Hanau means ‘race' or ‘ethnic group'. Eepe means ‘stocky' or ‘corpulent', but there is also a word epe, which means ‘earlobe'. Thor Heyerdahl says that the term was formerly spelled Hanau-epe. Whatever the correct term may be, the people referred to certainly had elongated earlobes. Today momoko carries the sense of ‘sharp-pointed', and it is assumed that the word probably used to mean ‘slender' or ‘weak'.8

     Some writers have concluded that the Hanau-eepe were the upper class, and the Hanau-momoko the lower class.

     One tradition says that Hotu Matua's people were the ‘short-ears', while the ‘long-ears' arrived in a subsequent migration. But another says that he brought both short-ears and long-ears with him, and yet another that the long-ears arrived before the short-ears.9 Heyerdahl saw the long-ears as the descendants of the first, Amerindian colonizers, and the short-ears as more recent Polynesian arrivals. The long-ears are sometimes said to have started building the great platforms, while the short-ears were the first to carve huge images of their ancestors and place them on the platforms.

     The long-ears reportedly subjugated the short-ears, until the latter finally rebelled. All the long-ears except one were allegedly massacred in the latter half of the 17th century; after a fierce battle the short-ears drove them into the Poike ditch, in which piles of brushwood had

     Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 11:35pm

190. sjchermak,

     Parents have every say in whether they choose to have their children attend a school, based on their activities. They most certainly have the right to complain.

     So tell me sjchermak, how many parents have complained and how many parents have withdrawn their children from the schools in question? Surely, in the absence of such complaints, then the activities, which are nothing more than showing allegiance to the country, are being done with the consent of those parents right?

     Just because you are ignorant of Jesus Camp, doesn't mean it didn't get mentioned to any great degree in the public domain. If you'd watched something other than Fox News, you would have been aware of it's existence.

     In any case, your argument is a distinction without a difference. There is no school this country that prevents parents from withdrawing their children from schools any time they wish or complaining about activities they find offensive.

     Your Obama indoctrination conspiracy theory is no more credible than the birther conspiracy.

     Your source, the wall Street Journal, was an op-ed from a right wing partisan hack, not a new report. Like I said, any piece that begins with "We predicted Democrats would...." is in itself a political hit piece. It provided no sources, no evidence, no anything for that matter.

     There was no wall, but by all means, feel free to link to other articles, as I did. No need to cut and paste. FYI. My links are from CBC, ABS, and ABC UK, so yeah, they;re very fringe.

     The so called "wall" isn't even make it into the 911 Commission report, so no, it's not a matter of public record. It's a right wing talking point.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 11:54pm

191. Jesus Camp is an elective choice. And yes, that's pretty messed up. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 9:20pm

     Any school is elective. There is nothing preventing any parent from withdrawing their child from any school or lodging complaints based on activities they find offensive.

     Did any parents take up any of those options? I think ONE parent complained, which was enough for Faux News to make a scandal out of it.

     So that leaves 2 possibilities. a) Either those activities were conducted with the approval of the parents (which is their prerogative) or b) The children were NOT singing songs praising a mere man in the manner that would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain, or Communist China is another thing entirely.

     What's ore, the Superintendent of that school faced an investigation into the incident, which proves that it was not part of any Federal Government program.

     What's creepy is the paranoia of the right wing in this country. The songs took place during a celebration of back history month and presidents day, but the far right would have us believe it represents a new curriculum.

     I guess it goes with the territory of being a minority.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 12:16am

192. It's creepy. And if your reaction to something with disturbingly fascist undertones is to merely say, "Well look at what you Republicans did!", then you are tacitly not holding your side to a higher standard than the people you profess to despise.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 9:20pm

     One more thing Citizen_Carrier,

     It might have been considered creepy if this was the result of some program originating from the Department of Education. it clearly was not, as the Superintendent of that School face a subsequent investigation over the matter.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 12:20am

193. "The long-ears reportedly subjugated the short-ears, until the latter finally rebelled."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 11:35pm

     "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" Frank Gorshin - Star Trek

     "He's black on the wrong side!"

     Posted by FLaim at 11/05/2009 @ 03:56am

194. It might have been considered creepy if this was the result of some program originating from the Department of Education. it clearly was not, as the Superintendent of that School face a subsequent investigation over the matter.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 12:20am

     So it's not creepy if it merely happens at the local level? Honestly, what would your reaction had been if videos surfaced in the last 8 years of kids being led to sing Bush's praises by government employees?

     You don't suppose the word "fascism" might have crossed the lips of a few liberal mouths? Frankly, I don't think kids should be doing any such thing, regardless of who is President. And Shingo, if a school district's majority decided they only wanted creationism taught in school, you'd be fine with that?

     I remember elementary school and being pushed into the direction of liberal politics by government employees who also (surprise, surprise!) happened to be members of a teachers union.

     This school business, the attempt to turn the National Endowment for the Arts into the propaganda arm of the Obama administration...how much more of this are you going to put up with before you start to see the parallels with countries in history you'd just as soon not emulate?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 07:04am

195. It might have been considered creepy if this was the result of some program originating from the Department of Education. it clearly was not, as the Superintendent of that School face a subsequent investigation over the matter.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 12:20am

     So it's not creepy if it merely happens at the local level? Honestly, what would your reaction had been if videos surfaced in the last 8 years of kids being led to sing Bush's praises by government employees?

     You don't suppose the word "fascism" might have crossed the lips of a few liberal mouths? Frankly, I don't think kids should be doing any such thing, regardless of who is President. And Shingo, if a school district's majority decided they only wanted creationism taught in school, you'd be fine with that?

     I remember elementary school and being pushed into the direction of liberal politics by government employees who also (surprise, surprise!) happened to be members of a teachers union.

     This school business, the attempt to turn the National Endowment for the Arts into the propaganda arm of the Obama administration...how much more of this are you going to put up with before you start to see the parallels with countries in history you'd just as soon not emulate?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 07:04am

196. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 07:04am

     Hey, Citi...how did you escape the "liberal indoctrination" back in 5th greade? Always curious about that.

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 08:48am

197. Simple. I was more interested in fishing, slingshots, bb guns, or what was going on in the Commodore 64 back home than their rather hamfisted attempts to indoctrinate children.

     Truth is, I wasn't aware at the time what they were specifically trying to do. It was only in retrospect later that I thought to myself, "Ah, so that was their game!"

     One game I remember in particular had our class supposing there was a nuclear war, we were in a shelter with a group, but somebody had to be kicked out because there wasn't enough food.

     The catch was that the one guy with engineer/architectural skills was also gay.

     The class kicked him out. Some moron at the national or state level must've "known" we kids would do that because of bigotry and intolerance. And this was to give the teacher a chance to drive home the lesson.

     What they didn't count on was the simple innocence of children and what we considered horrifying. In our minds at the time, civilization wasn't about buildings or shelter. It was about people. And the only thing important after a nuclear war, in a child's mind, would be repopulating the world back to normal as quickly as possible. Most of us had seen "nuclear war" apocalypic movies.

     So logically, we excluded the one guy we presumed would not be very useful in making babies.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 08:59am

198. Simple. I was more interested in fishing, slingshots, bb guns, or what was going on in the Commodore 64 back home than their rather hamfisted attempts to indoctrinate children.

     Truth is, I wasn't aware at the time what they were specifically trying to do. It was only in retrospect later that I thought to myself, "Ah, so that was their game!"

     One game I remember in particular had our class supposing there was a nuclear war, we were in a shelter with a group, but somebody had to be kicked out because there wasn't enough food.

     The catch was that the one guy with engineer/architectural skills was also gay.

     The class kicked him out. Some moron at the national or state level must've "known" we kids would do that because of bigotry and intolerance. And this was to give the teacher a chance to drive home the lesson.

     What they didn't count on was the simple innocence of children and what we considered horrifying. In our minds at the time, civilization wasn't about buildings or shelter. It was about people. And the only thing important after a nuclear war, in a child's mind, would be repopulating the world back to normal as quickly as possible. Most of us had seen "nuclear war" apocalypic movies.

     So logically, we excluded the one guy we presumed would not be very useful in making babies.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 08:59am

199. Shingo,

     You insist there was no wall, it is a right wing talking point, etc.

     Here's an article that refutes what you seem to contend:

     April 19, 2004, 8:49 a.m. The Wall Truth Gorelick provides the clearest proof yet that she should resign. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/

     The problem where law enforcement could not look at the contents of the terrorists' computer is a matter of public record, as noted in the article excerpt below.

     ".....Also, a criminal search warrant to examine the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose interest in flying aircraft had attracted attention, was rejected because FBI officials were afraid of breaching the wall. ....."

     It is not a right wing talking point...it happened and is a matter of public record. If the left doesn't talk about it that is because the left ignores it.

     You will also note that the U.S. Attorney in New York (Mary Jo White) was concerned about the potential effects of the wall...

     Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall' http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/29/20040429-122228-6538r/

     Congressional Record: April 28, 2004 (Senate) Page S4482-S4483 http://www.cnss.org/1995%20Gorelick%20Memo.pdf

     Again, a matter of public record....not open for you to debate or contend they did not occur...these events actually happened, they were not just created out of thin air by the "right wing"

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/05/2009 @ 09:43am

200. It is laughable that the author would say the administration of B. Hussein may seek to distance itself from it's "racialized support" by enacting conservative policies. Let's be honest, the health care legislation is aimed at the pocketbook of the European-American middle classes. It's enactment will simple hasten the inabilty to "..find common ground and achieve collective aims..", so comically put, by people like me standing in line at the Doctor's office behind recent legal immigrants from India and illegal immigrants from Guatamala. Is this a recipe for Domestic Tranquility ? B. Hussein's election was based on the dependable support of African Americans, Semitic-Americans and the revulsion of so many European-Americans with George Bush. Get real, as the full impact of the 1965 immigration reform act now begins to be felt who would seriously argue that America still has any faith in our ability to find common ground.

     Posted by ElliottTeesdale at 11/05/2009 @ 09:47am

201. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 08:59am

     What state was this in? City/county if you feel it wouldn't "give too much away"???

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 09:47am

202. Posted by ElliottTeesdale at 11/05/2009 @ 09:47am | ignore this person | warn this person

     let's see, xenophobe? check

     racist?check

     anti semitic? check

     anti immigrant? check

     you, are indeed the complete package.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2009 @ 09:58am

203. What state was this in? City/county if you feel it wouldn't "give too much away"???

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 09:47am

     No, don't think it would give anything away. It was Ohio, City of Middletown school district. But this was back in the 1980s.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 12:21pm

204. What state was this in? City/county if you feel it wouldn't "give too much away"???

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 09:47am

     No, don't think it would give anything away. It was Ohio, City of Middletown school district. But this was back in the 1980s.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 12:21pm

205. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 12:21pm

     So if somebody did a little digging....even called up the school district of Middletown or former teachers, they'd discover this "pro-gay nuclear war scenario" thing was actually part of the curriculum back in the 80s.

     I mean, if somebody wanted to spend the time and effort to do it?

     Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:29pm

206. Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:29pm

     I suppose so. I believe the teacher's name was Mr. Turner. You sound as if this classroom scenario, in an era where kids are being led to sing the praises of a man rather than our founding ideals, is somehow beyond your ability to believe.

     As if it stretches credibility. Did what I wrote sound as if I was making it up, instead of remembering?

     I wouldn't be suprised if somebody else around here had that same little 25 minute "lesson" in tolerance back in the 1980s too.

     I also remember a booklet put out when I was in the third or fourth grade that was paid for in part by a local labor union at the Aeronca aviation plant (my dad worked there for a short while, btw). It was a quick history of WWII, with a paragraph pointing out that in the context of Nazism, "conservative" ideologies tend to be "anti-liberty".

     That has stuck with me all these years, because even at that young an age I knew that our Founding Fathers were considered "conservative" when compared to "modern liberalism". Something was fishy to me then, because even I knew that the socialism in National Socialism, was certainly not a "conservative" approach to economics, limited government, or individual liberty.

     Wish I'd been able to keep that booklet as an example.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 1:02pm

207. Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 12:29pm

     I suppose so. I believe the teacher's name was Mr. Turner. You sound as if this classroom scenario, in an era where kids are being led to sing the praises of a man rather than our founding ideals, is somehow beyond your ability to believe.

     As if it stretches credibility. Did what I wrote sound as if I was making it up, instead of remembering?

     I wouldn't be suprised if somebody else around here had that same little 25 minute "lesson" in tolerance back in the 1980s too.

     I also remember a booklet put out when I was in the third or fourth grade that was paid for in part by a local labor union at the Aeronca aviation plant (my dad worked there for a short while, btw). It was a quick history of WWII, with a paragraph pointing out that in the context of Nazism, "conservative" ideologies tend to be "anti-liberty".

     That has stuck with me all these years, because even at that young an age I knew that our Founding Fathers were considered "conservative" when compared to "modern liberalism". Something was fishy to me then, because even I knew that the socialism in National Socialism, was certainly not a "conservative" approach to economics, limited government, or individual liberty.

     Wish I'd been able to keep that booklet as an example.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 1:02pm

208. Compared to the examples of left wing public school indoctrination and intimidation that have cropped up over the last 10 years, my old 1980s "nuclear fallout shelter survival" scenario is really small potatoes.

     I mean, what is that compared to Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" being shown to kids across the country? A "documentary" so riven with factual errors and leaps of faith it's almost like teaching a religion in school.

     http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

     A summary of a British trial on Gore's film. After the trial, teachers had to both get parental consent to show it in class AND announce to the class that it is so factually challenged that it must only be considered a political work, rather than a scientific one.

     Yep, the same film shown to millions of our kids, yet presented as a panic-inducing call to action.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/05/2009 @ 1:29pm

209. sjchermak

     The Washington Times article is a regurgitation of your previous link and attacks Gorelick, when in fact, the FISA warrants could have been obtained by any federal law enforcement agencies, whether they be the FBI or counter-terrorism agents.

     It's also interesting to note that both your Washington Time articles appeared before the 911 Commission Report was released, which refutes the claims made in these partisan op-eds. Here it is, demanding accountability from Gorelick, while giving a pass to Bush, who refused to testify to the 911 Commission under oath and without Cheney to hold his hand.

     So you see, the so called "wall" was a Republican talking point, invented to deflect criticism from the Bush Administration's gross negligence and stonewalling. It was the Bush Administration after all, that argued tireless against a 911 Commission, and then not only stonewalled it, but under funded it, refused to co-operate and then denied it's request for further time to complete their investigations.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 6:12pm

210. "Having teachers, government employees no less, lead children in songs praising a mere man in the manner that would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain, or Communist China is another thing entirely.

     Rather than say, "Yeah, that's way out of line", you are more comfortable with trying to find moral equivalence? If it's wrong, and you know it is, then just say so. Period.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/04/2009 @ 9:20pm

     "At the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, children from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.

     To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:

     Our country's stood beside us People have sent us aid. Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade. Congress, Bush and FEMA People across our land Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!" -http://tinyurl.com/gog28

     Yep, it's wrong in every case.

     Posted by FLaim at 11/05/2009 @ 6:15pm

211. Shingo,

     In the stuff I sent you were comments by the U.S. Attorney in New York, Mary Jo White, expressing warnings of the danger that could come from the actions the Clinton Justice department was putting into place.

     The wall.

     How is a U.S. Attorney warning of the negative ramifications of the wall during the Clinton administration a Republican talking point deflecting attention from George W. Bush?

     Also, I would point out that the central figure in this, Jamie Gorelick, was also on the 9/11 commission.

     Was it appropriate for her to be on the commission? Probably not.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/05/2009 @ 7:11pm

212. sjchermak,

     The stuff you sent me was based on opinions that were debunked by the 911 Commision.

     There were far graver warnings from Richard Clarke and even George Tenent just prior to 911, which were ignored byt eh Bush Administration.

     Clarke's warnings were dismissed and George tenet's August 2001 PDB was made into a plane by Dubya while taking a record long vacation on this fake ranch.

     The U.S. Attorney warning has no bearing on the fact that the 911 atatcks could easily have been stopped if teh Bush Administration had any concern for terrorism. Bush was obsessed with tax cuts for the rich, and Ashcroft was obsessed with policing television programming that showed too much skin.

     Jamie Gorelick became a tagret fo the Republicans who were simply trying to run interference for the criminal negligence of the Bush Administraion, who did everything they could to kill and then stonewall the 911 Commmission.

     The Bush's even appointed a friend of Condi's to make sure the Commission couldn't do it's job.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 7:28pm

213. Shingo,

     Once again:

     ".....Also, a criminal search warrant to examine the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose interest in flying aircraft had attracted attention, was rejected because FBI officials were afraid of breaching the wall. ....."

     This was due to the wall.........

     You think somehow this did not impact our ability to have known ahead of time that plans were being made by terrorists to attack on 9/11?

     This was the policy in place when the Bush administration took over.

     We learned too late the impact of such foolish policy.

     The Bush administration then took steps to undo this kind of stuff and step up our ability to fight terror, with things like the Patriot Act. ....

     As you know, the Bush administration was then crucified by the left.

     You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

     Clinton policy impeded the "dots" from surfacing that could have possibly been connected and foretold of 9/11. So even though it was Clinton policy, you on the left crucified President Bush for "allowing" the attack to happen.

     Then you crucified him afterward for taking steps to try and prevent another attack.

     I have seen articles minimizing/debunking the importance of Richard Clarke, and you must see no conflict of interest in Jamie Gorelick being on the 9/11 commission.

     We are just going around in circles on this. You start citing "tax cuts for the rich".....tax cuts have nothing to do with this argument.

     Since you brought them up, however, hopefully you do know the rich pay most of the tax in this country......look it up at www.irs.gov

     And hopefully you know that many of the wealthy wound up paying more in actual tax even though they were being taxed at a lower rate, and that revenue to the Treasury was greater than it would have been without the tax cuts.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/05/2009 @ 7:40pm

214. sjchermak,

     You can parrot this rubbish all you like, but the flight instructor at the School that Zacarias Moussaoui attended, informed the authorities about Moussaoui's suspicious behavior on 70 occasions. The warnings were ignored not because of any so called "wall", but because the Federal law Enforcement agencies were being told to focus on other priorities.

     Had the Bush Administration heeded the dozens of warnings they received from foreign governments, as well as their own intelligence agencies, the Fed's would have been focused on counter terrorism. There was the policy in place that prevented counter terrorism investigations from taking place. The Patriot Act has done nothing to prevent any terrorist attack. All it has done is turn the US into a police state. The Patriot Act is a violation of the US Constitution and in fact, the Republicans blocked Clinton's attempt to implement the very same policies when he was in power. It is YOU that is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. There was nothing preventing the"dots" from surfacing, because they were there for all to see. There were no policies preventing the Federal Government from heeding the dozens of warnings from foreign governments or the PDB's that Bush ignored while vacationing.

     The only articles minimizing/debunking the importance of Richard Clarke, are those from spin doctotrs trying to deflect his revelations and cover up the Bush Administration's criminal negligence. They knew they had dropped the ball, which is why the tried to block the creation of an investigations and when then failed, they relentlessly stonewalled.

     They behaviour spells GUILTY loud and clear.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 8:16pm

215. Continued...

     The conflict of interest regarding Jamie Gorelick being on the 9/11 commission is nothing compared to Phillip Zelliw being appointed to head the investigation. In fact, you may recall that the Bush's originally tried to appoint the war criminal, Henri Kissinger to whitewash the commission. He only styepped down when it was revealed that the Bin Laden's were among his list of clients.

     Oh and as for your lame argument that the rich pay most of the tax in this country, not they don't. They pay the lowest tax rate in this country. America's richest man, Warren Buffet, pays less tax than his cleaning lady.

     Posted by Shingo at 11/05/2009 @ 8:17pm

216. Shingo,

     The wealthy pay most of the tax. Look it up at www.irs.gov.

     That is the IRS website. Find the data about the historical tax revenue by income distribution. Crunch the numbers and you will see you are wrong.

     It doesn't matter what Warren Buffet does or doesn't do, he is one person. I am talking about the entire country.

     I am not talking about tax rate. I am talking about total amount of tax.

     www.irs.gov.

     I suppose you are going to post back and say the IRS website is a fringe right wing site?

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/06/2009 @ 04:35am

217. Yep, it's wrong in every case.

     Posted by FLaim at 11/05/2009 @ 6:15pm

     No disagreement here. As I said earlier, I don't care who the President is. Having kids being led into singing their praises is just not what I want to see. It's just plain unAmerica.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 08:01am

218. Yep, it's wrong in every case.

     Posted by FLaim at 11/05/2009 @ 6:15pm

     No disagreement here. As I said earlier, I don't care who the President is. Having kids being led into singing their praises is just not what I want to see. It's just plain unAmerica.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 08:01am

219. "No disagreement here. As I said earlier, I don't care who the President is. Having kids being led into singing their praises is just not what I want to see. It's just plain unAmerica."

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 08:01am

     Agreed. It's interesting that I didn't hear such a führer about it when Bush did it.

     Posted by FLaim at 11/06/2009 @ 5:35pm