Please drop the "weak Obama" meme

[ProSense]

Please drop the "weak Obama" meme

by Cassiodorus

Folks, this is not a winner. We can't be arguing that, because Obama hasn't caved to OUR desires, that there is some sort of personality flaw in him, that he's "weak" or "cowardly" or whatever.

Please don't use this meme. It's become a dog-whistle. Discuss policy. Discuss constructive action.

Millions of people around the world have been hurt by neoliberal policies. Millions more will be hurt here in the US, because there is no organized opposition to neoliberalism here. Discuss neoliberalism.

I'm not going to name names, here -- but we've got people calling the President "cowardly" or "weak" or "confused" or whatever, because the President does not repeal DADT or caves in on health insurance reform or finance reform or the recommendations of the Catfood Commission or on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy or whatever. Let's be clear about that what this meme really means.

The immediate impression is that the accuser has assumed what is to be shown. "Because Obama does not cave in to MY desires, he must be caving in to the Blue Dogs/ Republicans/ whomever." Obama is "weak" because the arguer assumed it beforehand.

<...>

The Commander-In-Chief is the most powerful man in the world. Glenn Greenwald debunked the "weak Obama" meme back in June. Why repeat it?

more

Stupid friggin meme.

[villager]

1. Maybe when Obama drops the futile "bipartisan" meme?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

4. Are you going to

hold him hostage until he does?

Maybe someone else can explain: Kucinich on GOP Compromise - Cenk on MSNBC

Excuse the idiot hosting the show.

[Fruittree]

78. My son reminded me of something when we were discussing

how so many call Pres. Obama weak yesterday. He reminded me that Obama promised to bring a more civil tone to Washington and in spite of the idiots he's having to deal with,he's kept that promise. I know people will say that he hasn't kept other promises - DADT, Guantanamo, others I can't think of right now that keep being repeated - but think of how much stronger his hand would be if we backed him rather than constantly complaining about what hasn't been done or how what has been done isn't good enough. I, for one, think he's incredibly strong to maintain his composure and dignity in spite of the hysteria surrounding him.

[karynnj]

84. Maybe you can write him as to how to pass PARTISAN legislation in the upcoming House

The US government via the Constitution - in making amendments very difficult and Senate rules is designed to insure that change requires super majority support. When it is easy for one party to make changes - as happened with the Bush tax cuts - the typical reaction is to try to strengthen the rules to prevent it going forward. Thus after the Bush tax cuts the rules on what can pass under reconciliation - which was a loophole - changed. The tax cuts could not have passed under the current rules.

This is a "conservative" principle in the real meaning, not the political meaning of the word.

Only in committing troops can Obama unilaterally make a huge change. The Constitution allows the President to do this if the country is under imminent danger. It is true that Congress has to declare war - but with troops on the ground it is essentially a fait accomplee.

[jaxx]

2. If they say he's weak, they must think they're strong.

Looks like a losing theory to me.

[still_one]

3. excuse me, when was the Patriot Act Repealed or Gitmo shut down? /nt

[ProSense]

5. When

the Congress agrees with the President.

[AlinPA]

57. Yep, that's how it works.

[earthside]

6. Whoa! Wait a minute!

You wrote: "caved to OUR desires" on several issues.

Ahem ... actually we want him to keep HIS campaign promises! That certainly isn't 'caving to our desires'.

I'm sorry, but if Obama breaks a central promise made time after time after time on the campaign trail in 2008 to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- without going to the wall to keep that promise -- well, then, he is being feckless and weak.

[ProSense]

8. Whoa

no, I don't really think that's what the people throwing the word weak around care about. I'm sure of it.

He's the President, not a personal servant.

[johnlucas]

80. Actually he's a public servant

Maybe we need to reverse the capitalization.

He's the president, a Public Servant.
And his service has been terrible.
John Lucas

[Ken Burch]

7. So what is your alternative meme suggestion: "The Strong But Reactionary Obama"?

Perhaps you're right....

I'd hate to think that. It would make it inconceivable for us to support his renomination, and I'm not sure there's somebody who can be sure to step up and take his place. Whoever did challenge the guy in a primary would HAVE to knock him out almost instantly, avoiding a "death spiral" primary fight like that of 1980(mind you, Carter would also likely have lost if renominated by acclaim, but let's leave that aside for a moment), have a strong connection to the African-American community(in order to diffuse the "you guys are against him because he's black" meme)and would have to look decidedly "presidential".

Have we got somebody who can do ALL that? At this point, I'm not seeing such a person.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Not until they grow a freaking spine.

[ProSense]

10. "They"?

President Obama is "they"?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. yes actually his administration is a they

but I include in that the rest of our spineless leaders in congress.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. When he learns how to negotiate, we will drop the weakness meme

If we wind up with the bush tax cuts for the weathly, he gets to keep the weakness meme for another two years.

[ProSense]

14. And with this

"If we wind up with the bush tax cuts for the weathly, he gets to keep the weakness meme for another two years."

If he does, will people realize that focusing on a stupid meme doesn't work? He's the President, he negotiates, and people push for him to stand on principle. In the end, he gets to decide what's best for the country.

From the OP: "Folks, this is not a winner."

[Milo_Bloom]

22. As usual, with you, it is about "winning".

Not what is ACTUALLY best for the country.

[ProSense]

24. As usual

you ignore what was actually said:

If he does, will people realize that focusing on a stupid meme doesn't work? He's the President, he negotiates, and people push for him to stand on principle. In the end, he gets to decide what's best for the country.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. Which is exactly why it is sad that he is weak.

[ProSense]

26. Here's proof he's not weak

He's ignoring the shit out of the lunatics, and they're offending people by the second with their idiotic bullshit.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. He's hardly ignoring anyone...

.. he whines about the critics all the time.

But, that's just another sign of weakness.

[ProSense]

29. "he whines about the critics all the time."

The critics who are whining about the President being weak and stupid? Seriously?

That's really too funny.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

33. "Doesn't make him any less weak."

That's the problem with the President's critics. They're in a Twilight Zone criticizing the President about their perception of his character and personality and the disposition of his supporters. He's busy getting stuff done.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. "He's busy getting stuff done."

LMAO.

Wow. Just when I thought it couldn't get sillier.

[ProSense]

36. Wait

He isn't getting stuff done? So what's everyone discussing?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

38. Interesting

"There is a huge difference between 'getting stuff done' and 'having stuff done to you'"

The President is the one getting stuff done, the people calling him weak because they're not getting their way are the ones in the latter category: name calling is not activism.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. No, sorry, I live in the real world.

The president has been on the losing end of every important battle so far.

So far, he's havin stuff done to him.

And judging by the latest piece of propaganda posted, even you think he is going to get it done to him again.

[ProSense]

42. Repeat:

The President is the one getting stuff done, the people calling him weak because they're not getting their way are the ones in the latter category: name calling is not activism.

"The president has been on the losing end of every important battle so far."

Really? He seems quite proud of his accomplishments. I think the critics are projecting.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. "Really? He seems quite proud of his accomplishments"

I'm sure he is... because no one ever fakes it in politics.

[verges]

63. And neither is catering to the every

whim of the RW! Unless, of course, you are a Republican! Don't repeal DADT, civil rights denied and bigots don't habe to deal with those yucky gay folk. Don't allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to sunset, the wealthy get to continue to get MUCH richer while the other 98% of us watch the economu go down the toilet. We've already watched the Insurance companies win, haven't we? Stupid negotiating was certainly a winner for them!

I WANT to feel good about Obama! I did; for a long time.. But, you can only watch these failures so long. I understand that he's had to go against a hostile RW. But he hasn't used the influence and bully pulpit of the Ptresidency as well as he should have. DADT and the Bush tax cuts should have been easy battles. And frankly, thy're getting screwed up. Enough already!

[CakeGrrl]

59. What do you know about what goes on behind those closed doors?

That's the downside of not being privy to jack shit. Only if you were in that exact same situation could you presume to advise on what needs to be learned.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. Don't need to know.

I do not he promised many of these negotiations WOULDN'T go on behind closed doors, we have his lie on that...

But, I also know he had opportunity and public support to make a strong public option happen and for some inexplicable reason chose not to follow that path, which tells us quite clearly his negotiating skills are sub par.

Ie, when you go into a car dealership and go in that little room with the finance manager and come out paying more than sticker price... we don't need to know what went on behind closed doors to know you suck at negotiation.

[CakeGrrl]

95. If only Congresspeople weren't beholden to their local constituencies

...or if Obama had mind-control powers over the Blue Dogs to override their fence-straddling.

But people who are bent on holding Obama to the standard of omnipotency won't hear it.

[Milo_Bloom]

96. You missed the point entirely.

His campaign promise that the health care negotiations would be open to the public was a lie.

Second, HE HAD THE VOTES TO PASS A PUBLIC OPTION IN RECONCILIATION!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60683-harkin-says-he-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation


The public option was also WIDELY POPULAR WITH THE PEOPLE (you know those constituents you where complaining about)
http://thejoshuablogs.blogspot.com/2009/09/surveryusa-poll-77-want-public-option.html


So I don't need to know what went on behind closed doors, to know he failed miserably in the process.

[Steve_I_Am]

69. If we end up with the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy . . .

I am going to drop the "Obama is weak" meme, and start the "Draft HOWARD DEAN in 2012" meme!

[Milo_Bloom]

71. +1000!!!

[mitchtv]

94. big welcome to DU steve-I am

that's the spirit

[treestar]

87. I'm sure you know exactly how to negotiate

In that situation.

Ridiculous.

[Phx_Dem]

13. Amen. If progressives are going to vote Republican and are trying their best

to destroy our chances of a second term, who gives a shit what they want anyway? They're no better than teabaggers.

[frylock]

61. or child molestors

[hulka38]

15. He's either weakly advocating progressive/liberal positions

or strongly undermining them. I've reluctantly concluded the latter recently so I'm in agreement with you. No advocacy whatever.

[allmylove]

16. Article II

Veto

As President he can say no to tax giveaways for the rich.

Waiting.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. He IS policy; the whole candidacy was based on HIM

This is part of why so many of us called foul and used the term "cult": he studiously fluffed specifics and tried to be all things to all people. It's all about HIM and this is the bed he's made for himself. We have precious little in the way of specifics about what he wants to do or will try to do, and that makes his character the only real issue.

I don't want some broadly-smiling, ultra-cool Maitre d' as a President, and it seems that's what we've got. So yes, his spine is a legitimate point.

Somehow it's gotten into so very many peoples' heads that he's a godlike and transcendent superperson, and we should sit with misty eyes in blessed reverie that he's come unto us, and this is crap.

[wndycty]

18. K&R

:kick:

[political_Dem]

19. The "weak" meme means more than that.

A big issue not being talked about is a loss of power by the dominant culture. Because of fear and the threat that comes from loss of privilege and supremacy, anything that chips away from Mr. Obama's potency and leadership is employed in a paternalistic sense in order to make him infantile and helpless.

Let's face it. There are some people who can't deal with a person of color in power. And when you've been socialized in a group that has had your race praised and rewarded through opportunity, law and social position, when one person in a marginalized group breaks into a position of power, efforts will be made utitlizing all societal resources to get rid of the threat to entitlement.

I'm not surprised it happened because the racialized codes and dog whistles are as plain as day along with the bitterness that existed even before the Inaugeration.

[dionysus]

21. spot on.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. Clinton was weak also.

And he shares a large part of the blame for the financial mess we wound up in.

[firedupdem]

30. +1

Spot on. Certainly is a dog whistle and whenever I hear it I think of African American men being called "boy". It's a way of diminishing him as a person.

[ruggerson]

48. I think you're right to an extent

but it's mostly non-educated whites that feel that way. ANd they are the easiest to manipulate using fear and resentment.

Educated whites (and of course I'm generalizing) either a)think the evolution of our nation that Obama embodies and symbolizes is a great thing and/or b) they understand that the country is never THAT affected by one President. Good ones, bad ones, we've survived many.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. That doesn't mean it's not true

It also shouldn't provide some kind of immunity from rebuke on the subject.

In a moment of considerable leverage and at a time when some of the distaste for the last 30 years of atavistic conservative control was momentarily at bay, he was less than timid in dealing with a battered opponent that was in retreat. The stimulus was watered down and sucking up with tax cuts and reminders that it was mostly done through private enterprise was pathetic. The absolutely pathetic pre-surrendering on health care was astonishing. ANYONE who knows anything about negotiation knows that you ask for far more than you're willing to settle for.

He has been played by this mob; they're jackals who pounce on weakness like the bullies they are, and he's caved so many times and been so mollifying and accommodating that they'll press harder and harder. We're now locked into a sad downward spiral of having to prove himself non-spineless, while still somehow needing to prove that he'll be inclusive. I, and many others on the left, do not see ANY steadfastness or indication of an ability, willingness or inclination to stand any ground at all and fight, and now that he's been bulldozed a few times, it'll be a constant battle at any given moment to stand for anything.

Yes, all sorts of coded epithets ooze forth from racism and the power blocs of privilege, but there's a corresponding danger of blaming resistance on simply that. What the reactionaries love more than anything else is that he's a waffling ultramoderate, much like Clinton, and they have less respect for those than they have for actual liberals.

Do you seriously think this man is a Franklin Roosevelt or a Teddy Roosevelt or a Harry Truman, ready to stand up and call the fixers of economic privilege out for what they are? That's ridiculous. He can say they drove us into the ditch, but that connotes incompetence, not deliberate evil. He has no stomach to call out our enemies for what they are, and they know this. White, Black or Green, it doesn't matter; this is glad-handing spinelessness. There are enemies in this world. We can't just reach across the aisle and expect to draw our arm back with its rings and wristwatch intact or even with most of its fingers; these guys are greedy, supremely intolerant and laugh at the very concept of compromise. They eat cosmopolitan people for lunch, and consider other mindsets fit for nothing but banishment or destruction.

He owes us. We do not owe him. His life has not been that hard, and his accomplishments do not merit the hagiographic praise they've been accorded. He got a Peace Prize for WHAT? For what we "hope" he's going to do some day, a day which will be different from his ultra-evasive and safe political record, is presumably the reason.

If he gets rolled a couple more times, he's toast, and we are too. I consider this to be a betrayal, and the bizarre and pathetic need to be liked reeks of Clintonian narcissism. So very, very many things infuriated me about Bill Clinton, but he had some moxie on occasion. Gingrich threatened to shut down government, and he let them. Do you see Obama doing the same? We may very well get an opportunity to put that question to the test, and we shall see.

Race, schmace; this is about character, and I and many others are seeing naivete and an inability to fight. We're also seeing the transparent and vague homilies of wistful populism as suspiciously distasteful cover for enabling intransigent corporatism. Perhaps he feels such power blocs of monied control are either necessary to any form of society or unbeatable in the immediate situation, but the result is the same. He seems truly baffled that the right turns on him and ratfucks him at every turn when he's giving them so much: watered-down regulation and continued wars. He's also just as mystified by the left's ire for fine-sounding but flimsy policy and the evasive continual giving of ground. Having charted the middlest of all middle courses and gotten away with it for so long, he's seemingly astonished to find that he has to actually make specific stands here and there, and he's without the tactical prowess to come up with another tactic than his one trick: being all things to all people and avoiding taking positions whenever possible.

If this somehow has to become a referendum on race, then we all get fucked.

[ruggerson]

54. Beautifully said

The man simply is not a transformational, ideologically-based leader.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/ruggerson/5

[StarsInHerHair]

77. purityofessence-beautifully said and WHAT a bullseye ruggerson

holy !

[political_Dem]

66. By the vile behavior of some in this party, we are already fucked.

Pardon my french, because I usually do not use that language. But I think it is a little too late to put your head in the sand and deny the racial component isn't there.

By arguing against it, it only shows how clueless some are about the extent of race in this issue. The racial politics of entitlement, power and fear are all over this campaign to render Mr. Obama a "weak leader". Why else do you think that the POTUS has derogatory things said about his family, himself and his allies on signs and message boards. Death threats, political shows, blogs and even newspaper editorials continue this meme with sublt attacks about his race, abilities and intellect. Just because you and others can't see it doesn't mean that people of color and those sympathetic to our issues share similar views.


Some can deny all they want that race has nothing about this, but until they don Blackface and walk in the shoes of a Black person who hears
these types of racially coded behaviors and words without any way to avoid it, their argument seems
naive.

[PurityOfEssence]

67. You define me as one who is not "sympathetic to our issues"

I agreed in my post that a racial element exists in some criticism of him, but still contend that he deserves the flak for being weak. If this is baiting on the part of some to impugn his manhood--which it surely is--that doesn't refute the assessment of his actions and inactions.

People use all sorts of nasty insinuating cheap shots; conservatives are hideously consistent with their need to impugn an opponent's manhood, as they did with Joe Wilson, repeating the lie that he only got his "job" because his wife pulled strings. There are all sorts of maligned groups in society, and it's a sad trap for those of downtrodden groups to so focus on their disparagement that they expect heroes of their group to have some kind of privileged status.

Many people have reduced opposition to or criticism of Obama to undeniable, de facto racism. That's a nasty version of peer pressure designed to shout down others who disagree and exile them from the group. This board is a community, and branding people as not sympathetic to the issues of Black People is heady stuff, generally intended to hound them into silence.

Quite frankly, I don't think that the real problem is his spinelessness and hayseed's gullibility in the face of bare-knuckled thugs, I think the real problem is that he's rather right-of-center and cynically deliberate in his "playing" of the left. I'm thankful amid the ruins that he's just not a very good politician, because if he was REALLY good, he could successfully continue to sucker the left into thinking he really was their champion while dragging the country even farther to the right, and he's being "outed" right now; it simply can't be hidden anymore.

Unfortunately, many people from marginalized groups have to overcompensate to prove themselves, and this can often prove to hasten their downfall. If a woman politician cried as often as John Boehner, she'd be tarred as an emotional girl and Pat Schroedered out the door. Black politicians tend to be very wary about being perceived as being "angry" to dispel prejudices, and they have to walk quite a tightrope, because if they're too reluctant to get mad, they're risking getting slagged for weakness. There's not much of a middle ground, and I'm aware of that, but the job still has to get done, and it's not an easy job to be a politician. They also owe US; if they can't hack it, they should do us a favor and find a new gig.

I don't like being held hostage by ANY group and expected to grant immunity to any particular hero. I and my children also have some plans for the future, and politely holding my tongue while a glad-handing, ultramoderate, corporatist appeaser allows himself to be punked by a bunch of thugs just wasn't on my to-do list last time I looked. If pointing out serial clay-footedness is crypto-racism, then ANY criticism of ANY politician is dismissable.

It is sad at times like these to see liberals and other pluralists more at each others' throats than usual, but the quick squandering of a brief populist groundswell after three decades of neo-feudalist power-grabbing makes for some raw emotions. This dramatic turnaround is really the work of one person, the one whose acolytes harangued us to trust in his transcendent other-worldliness: Barack Obama. He's going to take a lot of heat from the left. He deserves it.

If someone can't criticize for a personality trait without being labeled a racist (or not "sympathetic") then that's just going to be another impediment to the non-rich getting a fare shake.

One of the definitions of bigotry is to make broad pronouncements about people based on scant and generally superficial information. Defining another person as one in a community, however mealy-mouthed, is inflammatory and disruptive.

[political_Dem]

73. Please spare me the "Gone With The Wind." theatrics.

This assessment of the factors concerning the harsh treatment of Mr. Obama during this time isn't personal. It is a factor of society. Race and racism is a factor of everyday life, from top to bottom. And no matter how "little" you find it, it exists on a larger scale for others who have to experience it everyday of their lives. That also means Mr. Obama and his family, nuclear and extended). Thus, whether you like it or not, someone somewhere is going to be racist against the President in their commentary especially when his has to do with his potency. Not all people are going to be this way, but it is common for people who are infuriated, fearful and threatened of a man not looking like them in the most powerful position in the land.

The beauty of this country is to have any opinion one likes. Another lovely thing is that this country is made up of diverse races, cultures, languages and social mores. However, to a culture that "has held" people of color as well as persons on the margins "hostage" via laws, social practices and violence, all social institutions in this nation has made it a point to belittle anything that wasn't attributed to the dominant culture. In fact, when potency and strength was considered a plus factor in leadership, those were factors associated with the dominant culture. People of color were always depicted as infantile, weak and unable to care for themselves. In fact, it was one of the beliefs that kept African slavery in tact in America for nearly four hundred years. In the case of Black people, the only time they were allowed to be strong was when they were working for the white master. Other than that, any show of independence in terms potency was treated as a threat.

In the same manner, whenever a person who is part of that "dominant culture" lashes out at the abilities and ideas of people who don't fit within their culture, it is often seen as an attack on entitlement and social positioning.

Thus, someone who understands the plight of people of color and those who exist on the margins of society wouldn't be "held hostage" by a conversation about race. To them, it would simply be a discussion about racial experiences and the issues that result from the said situation. No fear of being called a racist would ever come up. They also wouldn't be threatened by the power and progress of those not of the dominant culture. They would easily understand the dichotomy that occurs between the culture socially influenced on entitlement and privilege based on their race and those excluded from such social mobility due to prejudice and exclusion. Consequently, people who listen and understand where folks of color are coming from in their experiences (as well as other groups outside of mainstream society) do not dismiss of experiences of race and culture. They take it in stride and work with the knowledge they received as a form of new understanding.

[PurityOfEssence]

97. Kindly tender a list of racially acceptable complaints we may timidly mention about Mr. Obama

This is about our LIVES and our future. Whether he's a huckster or a rube, he's making a mess of things.

It's an abusive relationship now, and we're being told to shut the fuck up and just lie back and take it. The taint of Rahm Emanuel will never be gone because he wasn't some rogue element going ugly on the lefties, he was the intended voice of the operation itself.

It will be interesting to see apologists justify our President's actions as someone else's after a few more shufflings of the subordinates. There is no comfort in seeing people drop off with advancing disillusionment, though; this is, once again, about our futures.

Flatly, do you see no truth to the accusations of his being far more to the right than advertised, being repeatedly faced down by the right and being ultra-timid with specifics of policy advanced? Seriously, this is a real question: do you see no truth to this criticism of clay-footedness and near-instant accommodation upon meeting ANY resistance?

What this smacks of is a cry for the halt to ANY criticism of him as a person, due to some kind of demanded privilege as compensation for undeniable suffering of his race in this country. Talk about HIM. Is he to be given the blank check and religiously honored as irrefutably "good" regardless of what he does? That's not going to do squat for anyone except what seem to be his true constituents: corporations, the rich, War Incorporated and Organized Religion.

Please pardon my stinging from my middle-class white guilt in the face of having race thrown in my face, but do you REALLY see no pattern of weakness there? REALLY?

Judge him on his character and actions and ask yourself this: would you tolerate this bullshit from a white guy?

(edited for grammar)

[ibegurpard]

79. excellent response

[frylock]

62. fucking ridiculous..

when you have to resort to accusations of covert racism to defend legitimate critique of this admin, then you lose all credibility.

[political_Dem]

64. By whose terms?

With that question, this leads me to two other inquiries and a statement:

Why is it when a white person says if they can't see or understand the racial component of a situation, they have to nullify the argument by saying "it loses all credibility"? Why do some white people say they are always right when it comes to validating racial experience?

In other words, this argument is valid. Therefore, I and other folks who see this view of how Mr. Obama is treated by his enemies should be able to discuss this view without you or any other person saying it is invalid. If one immediately tries to invalidate the experiences of another in terms of race, it is time to listen to the cultural and racial experiences of folks of color in this country. This nation is not populated by one race alone. Their experiences, politics and insights do not speak for everyone in this nation. Valid or not, people of color should be able to share their feelings or insights without being bullied and harassed into silence.

That's kind of what I meant when the dominant culture feels threated by a Black man who is the Leader of the Free World. Same behavior.

[seaglass]

81. Can you explain what is threatening about a Black man as leader of the US?

I don't understand what there is to fear or what you think people fear.

[ruggerson]

85. I agree with you completely

"people of color should be able to share their feelings or insights without being bullied and harassed into silence."

The curious thing is when it comes to LGBT issues and President Obama, it is often many people of color along with many whites who attempt to bully and harrass them into silence.

And, to add insult to injury, gay people of color are bullied and harrassed and rendered TOTALLY invisible by the majority in their own communities.

[political_Dem]

90. You're right.

I agree that the problem of bigotry in the straight world is horrible. LGBTIQ'ers of color have to face racism within the LGBTIQ community as well as out of it. When they speak about racism, they get silenced and bullied as much as straight people of color when dealing with such complexities in dominant culture. Sadly, the experience is the same when their experiences concerning race are nullified by people who don't care to be concerned with issues that affect people of color from all walks of life.

Marlon Riggs, Audre Lorde and other LBGTIQers of color spoke furtively about this very issue in their films, writings and poetry.

As true as you are about how gay bigotry is a component in communities of white folks and people of color, what it further emphasizes in both communities is that privilege and opportunity is a factor in determining who as a voice or not.

Ultimately, what white LGBTIQ'ers forget is that unlike their counterparts of color, they still have privilege, entitlements and opportunities based on their race. Although they do face bigotry because of their sexual orientation, they still recieve higher pay, more social mobility and better treatment than people of color, LGBTIQ'er or straight.

And furthermore, when some white members of the LGBTIQ community speak of Mr. Obama, they continue to dismiss him, call him names and ridicule his stances like their straight counterparts.

In essence, you are not revealing anything new. The only thing you are trying to do is minimize the experience of racism that is a part of this issue when it comes to attacking Mr. Obama's character. However, I do thank you for discussing these complex issues related to how you view race in this matter.

[ruggerson]

92. You're correct in that it is a complicated set of hierarchies

but James Baldwin and Bayard Rustin weren't harrassed and demeaned primarily by white people. Wanda Sykes, amongst others, has spoken to the fact that homophobia was a far bigger obstacle for her growing up in our society than racism. On a personal level, my college boyfriend and myself never once encountered any open racism in the years we were together, but we sure encountered a helluva lot of homophobia. When LGBT DU'ers on this site have claimed Barbara Jordan as one of our own, so that history is recorded honestly and with integrity, we have encountered hostility.

I am not minimizing racism in our society. Obama's election in no way ended racism, in many ways it brought a lot of it to the surface. Many white people are in denial about how racism is an everyday struggle for people of color in this country. Much of the hostility that Obama faces in some quarters is, in part, race based.

All of that doesn't mean that the problem with homophobia in minority communities is a cause and effect result of racism in LGBT society. There is no more or no less racism in the LGBT community than there is in society at large.

You make very sound points about white privilege. But what about heterosexual privilege? What about all the gay kids of color right now dealing with rampant homophobia every single day of their lives and in their own homes?

[Milo_Bloom]

72. He's not being treated ANY Differently by the vast majority!

There are racist fucks out there, but the general critiques he faces is absolutely no different than those placed by the presidents before him, who all happened to be white.

Carter was called weak... Clinton was called weak. George HW bush was called weak.

Is their latent and blatant racism out there? Yeah. This just isn't one of those instances.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lucinda]

28. Well for some people that view is the result of comparing the SPEECHES of Obama the candidate

with the ACTIONS of Obama the POTUS, and they have found the man to be a weak leader.
And I think they have the right to that opinion.

I don't think he's weak.
I don't think he's being played.
I think he's doing EXACTLY what he wants to do.
And, for me, that's the pity of it all.

[Zenlitened]

32. "Discuss neoliberalism"... and no one will know what the hell you're talking about.

What a ridiculous piece of advice. The author is completely out of touch with American political reality.

To the point where he she has entirely missed the policy discussion and calls for constructive action, that are inherent in, that are part and parcel of any discussion of whether Pres. Obama is weak or strong.

And speaking of tired old memes:

"Because Obama does not cave in to MY desires, he must be caving in to the Blue Dogs/ Republicans/ whomever."

It's a strawman made even more tiresome by constant overuse.

It's a strawmeme!

Reccing this thread for the sheer, laugh-out-loud stupidity of the quoted article.

[ProSense]

35. Hmmm?

"Discuss neoliberalism...The author is completely out of touch with American political reality."

The poster made a valid point. There are a lot of people in the media, including Krugman, who invoke neoliberalism in criticizing the President.

Do you really believe the President's critics, the ones who believe he can do no right, give a damn about "American political reality"?

[Zenlitened]

41. Strawmeme example: "the President's critics, the ones who believe he can do no right..."

:hi:

[ProSense]

45. No,

demonstrated right in this thread.

[Zenlitened]

46. No...

...sense making your sentence.

:shrug:

[truth2power]

40. It's not about "caving to MY desires" (which is a subtly pernicious statement)...

It's about being a responsible leader.

So if we ask our leader not to commit war crimes, not to approve the assassination of individuals without affording them due process, not to refuse to prosecute Bush/Cheney for the crimes they've committed and then twist the arms of the Spanish govt. to shut down their judicial process, to shut down secret prisons around the world etc., if we ask these things, we're asking him to CAVE to our desires??

The author of that article states outright that Obama's agenda is flawed, but wishes not to go into why that is so. In my view, it's perfectly legitimate, when someone isn't performing adequately, to ask WHY.

To the best of my knowledge, Chris Hedges was the first one to say, when asked that question, "He's weak." I think Hedges is probably right, although I'm open to several other possibilities, e.g., he's complicit, or he's scared (of being assassinated).

I think one thing is for sure; he's not playing 12 dimensional chess. Oh, and the citizens of this country are getting the short end of the stick.



edit> can't spell subtly

[Stoic]

44. I will if he will. n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

56. self delete

thx mods

[burning rain]

50. No.

It may not be a "winner," as the author says, but it is true. Barack Obama has lacked political courage going back to his whopping (and really disreputable) number of "Present" votes in the Illinois state Senate. If he doesn't like being portrayed as a coward and a weakling, he should stop acting like one vis-a-vis Republicans and conservative interests.

[madinmaryland]

51. Ok. But I won't drop the "Obama is disappointing me" meme.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

52. Caving to desires? This isn't a romance novel.

Who the fuck is Cassiodorus and why should I care?

Stupid friggin post.

[ProSense]

53. "Who the fuck is Cassiodorus and why should I care?"

Why did you respond to the thread?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

55. Why didn't you answer my question? (n/t)

[ProSense]

58. Who are you?

The OP is about a point, either address it or ignore it.

[sudopod]

60. Gay people wanting civil rights

is my desire. Not having people tortured and disappeared is my desire.

Not dying from preventable disease is my desire.

Jesus, I'm a selfish bastard.

[Ramulux]

65. There is like a public mental breakdown going on over at Dailykos

They seem to be going through the same thing happening here, with a bunch of moderates starting to get really sick of Obama's bullshit and a small faction of Obama loyalists absolutely intent on ignoring everything he does that isn't awesome. The left is splintering in a big way, and its kind of funny to watch.

[Steve_I_Am]

68. When the President stops acting weakly . . .

I will stop calling him weak.

[cherokeeprogressive]

74. Please stop whining.

[budkin]

75. Why? We're just calling it like he's being it.

[Raine]

76. No, he's not weak he's doing exactly what he wants

or what the corporations he sold out to have told him to do.

[mstinamotorcity]

82. its easier to blame

the President because he is the leader of the Democratic Party. But if you asked the question of blame to be put anywhere else, it would never rest on the backs of ordinary Americans. For some reason we just don't want to accept responsibility for not following through with CHANGE after the vote of 2008. A lot of people CHANGED the way they voted,but did not CHANGE the way the think or act.And the President can only put into legislation what comes to his desk.The bully pulpit works when the bully is in control. He is President but does not have total control. The mistake that the people made. The Billionaires Boys Club has control. When will the people take them down. That will be the only way to have a real Government. And to put in protections so that we don't have to worry about billionaires dividing the country for profit!!!

[MadHound]

83. Sure, just as soon as he starts fighting for issues and policies that are overwhelmingly popular

Instead, he continues to be weak and cave, time and again.

[treestar]

86. Agree, it only helps Republicans

In fact it surely originated with them.

It's their obsession. Remember what cowards we were for opposing any war?

[boston bean]

88. I agree, it makes me want to pull my hair out when I see people saying he can't do this or that

that he has no power, that there is nothing he can do to change the narrative or fight for.

Or that he is afraid he will be killed.

It's ridiculous and I think borders on racism.

[SidDithers]

89. K&R...nt

Sid

[bvar22]

91. I agree...Obama is not weak.

He is doing exactly what he has been paid to do.
Even he has stated that he has gotten almost everything he wanted.

"By their works, you will know them.

I wish we had a President who fought as hard for the Working Class.

[Arkana]

93. Good point, but why bother posting it here?

You'll just get grief and swarmed by the Gollum Group.