Obama's Struggle With Typical Liberal Hypocrisy
From the beginning it's been fairly clear a big chunk of supposedly liberal America hasn't been ready for Barack Obama. Their unease obvious in the shock and awe of Joe Biden, and in Newsweek's inane, aloud wonderings of whether or not Obama was "black enough." "Black enough" for the liberals being people of color in the Sharpton/Jackson mold; Old Schoolers devoutly wed to the regressive ideology of loud haranguing and low expectations. Obama -- early on in a Pound Cake-esque fashion urging people of color to do better and questioning race-based affirmative action -- was clearly not "black enough" for the Liberal Plantation.
Any doubt that Obama was from the jump fighting not only for the presidency, but also against Lefty hypocrisy was shattered into a million pieces by Geraldine Ferraro's "lucky" black man remark. Those pieces then again refined by Clinton's talk of "hard-working Americans, white Americans."
Clearly much of the liberal Left has long seen...oh, your average non-hard-working black, as nothing more than a piece of a loyal voting bloc. Keep us anesthetized, they feel, with promises of hand outs and government mollycoddling and we will mindlessly check the "D" box on Election Day.
Conservatives are, of course, not a hair less bigoted in their hearts (nor are Independents or anyone else for that matter). But unlike Democrats, Republicans have found a way to play nicely with the ideologically aligned, regardless of the color of their skin.
That, perhaps, is part of the problem; Obama is more his own man than merely a Democratic tool. That he refused to put up a show, and then capitulate, makes him all the more frustrating to those on the Left used to their people of color playing by pre-prescribed rules.
In that regard it's too bad Obama's not an anti-war Republican. His "Yes We Can" message of hope, his Morning in America redux, would have worked much better had it not be drowned out by the typical gloom and doom drum beat of the liberal machine. And all that clack about him being elitist? Well, the Right's managed to sneak in a "down to earth" Ivy League president two cycles running. As both sides make a grab for the middle, imagine what the Right could have done with the likes of Obama.
Which is not to say that Obama won't still be elected president. At this point I think there's nothing that he can't do. Though, if so, he will do it despite the best efforts of the typical hypocrisy of the Left.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
John, you may have set a Guiness Book record for cramming sweeping generalizations into one blog post. The only hypocrisy I see Obama struggling with -- is his own. Here is a politician who rails against old style politics and old style Washington politicians, yet he surrounds himself with "the good ole boys network" - Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle, to cite a few. In your last two blogs, you have attempted to portray poor Obama as a victim (first, exit polling and now liberal hypocrisy). Let's be frank; when it comes to the media, Obama racks up more free passes than the EZ Pass Lane on the GW Bridge. I am reminded of that famous quote about politics -- "Once you can fake sincerity, the rest is easy." Obama's rise to power has been carefully orchestrated by himself, his wife, and many old style politicians and many of the people of influence that Chicago has to offer, while professing to be nothing like other politicians. A careful study of Obama's maneuvering and positioning in Chicago political circles underscores his political savvy. If Barack is as good at governing as he is at creating and projecting an image to the electorate, we may have a chance to recover from the last eight trying years. If not, then I would submit that, at the very least, we finally have a Democrat who can match Republicans in the marketing arena -- which is nothing to scoff at!
The hypocrisy of those who attack Hillary for identifying a core voting group as white working class people boggles the mind. Has White become the new politically incorrect N..... word?Must we now say the Anglo Saxon(Celts and Normans,please no offense) working class just as we say the Afro American working class?Please LWL tell me how to speak and not use MF...Thank you.
John Ridley,
You write well. However, you really have nothing to offer except straw man arguments.
While some nut somewhere might have wondered whether Obama was black enough, that is not what the "Left" said, unless you now consider Newsweek as a left-wing magazine.
You reference to Biden's gaffe, again, is based on media reaction to it, not something the the "Left" did or did not do.
Finally, you straw man that "...makes him all the more frustrating to those on the Left used to their people of color playing by pre-prescribed rules." is laughable because there is no frustration with Obama. You just made that up.
And there was no hypocrisy from the Left about Ferraro's remark. It would be hypocrisy if the "Left" criticised Ferraro and then did the same of what she did. Did that happen? When?
Your whole article makes absolutely no sense. But, as I said at the start, you write well.
I can't agree on one point: he does not even write well. Everything else I agree with wholeheartedly.
This is arguably the best, most honest and insightful piece I've read about liberal psyche on race.
Such hypocrisy describes Clinton's real attitude towards race so well, I think Hillary Herself would be scared.
And I think this is why she's still running. She genuinely believes Obama can't win because he's black.
I'm liberal alright. But I've been suspecting for a long time now that some liberals are driven to be "liberal" by guilt or "belief" as opposed to simply, matter-of-factly feel races are equal. The liberal cloak gives them cover.
The telling word in that sentence is "can't."
She believes he "can't" win because he is "black."
Instead of:
He won't win because he is "black."
Saying he can't win points to a deficiency in him.
Saying he won't win points to a deficiency in us.
Speak for yourself, as re: liberal because of guilt. Me, I'm liberal because I care about results, and I want what's good for this country and our future.
And in my opinion, this article is a dishonest crock for several reasons:
1) citing Joe Biden as an example of "liberal America"? Joe freaking Biden? Yeah, he's right up there with Chomsky.
2) Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, ditto. Sorry, Iraq hawks and their supporters are not liberals. Their centrists.
3) "conservatives are not a hair less bigoted"...Nice try at false balance, but conservatives are more bigoted.
Heard of the KKK? Aryan Nation? Nazi Skinheads?
Now, take an honest guess at whether or not they're liberal or conservative. And if you say liberal, remember I said "honest".
I was a liberal until I met the enemy and found out he was us( full of hatred and bigotry just like the right wing conservatives.)
As horrible as it seems, John, I don't think there is anymore a uniform Liberal than a uniform Conservative ... I don't think Republicans or Democrats are rigid blocks either. One of the greatest, progressive Presidents the United States ever had was a Republican ... Theodore Roosevelt.
There are hypocrites, everywhere ... there is no shortage. As difficult as it is for people to get their heads around ... every individual in the United States ... as in the World ... is an individual. We have all met people that are true to the image they present and people who fake it. When you say "Typical Liberal Hypocracy" what kind of Liberal are you using as your baseline? A San Francisco Bay Area Liberal? A Madison Wisconsin Liberal? A Houston Texas Liberal? A Vermont Liberal? ... Are all Liberals Uniform? I don't know about that.
I know when people migrated here in San Francisco in the 1960s ... some came for the Movement. some came to Protest the War ... some hoped to find a place they could fit in ... and some came to get stoned and laid ... I don't think people operate under the uniform thought principle.
Obama appeals to me because he is of my era ... we have shared experiences based on the times and diverse communities we were raised in ... I don't know what Liberals think ... the code ... but I think reasonable people will be happy with Obama as President, and
This is same flavour of weary "identity politics" that earned so many beer-drinking friends for the smirking, ne'er-do-well presently in the White House, running the U.S. straight into the ground!
Actually, George W Bush's persona was manufactured ... Obama has the education, and life experience that many can relate to. Father leaving when he was two; raised by a single mother; then being a part of a step family; living abroad; battling with identity; working to make something of himself; working in a poor community in Chicago to help people; recognizing without further education his ability to make a difference was limited, so he buckled down, went to Harvard, was voted President of the Harvard law Review and graduated Magna Cum Laude; passed up a chance at a well paying corporate career to honor his pledge to return to the inner city; watching his mother battle with insurance companies while she was dying of cancer. Hell yeah, that's an identity, a rich, principled, wise identity ...
Just because George W Bush was a fraud, and there are others who have spun a less than honest biography for themselves, doesn't mean that Obama isn't who he is.
You want another blue-blood like McCain or Clinton who pretend they are of the people like Bush ... or do you want someone who is of the people ... that's the choice here.
Much of the CENTRIST APPEASER party faction has seen blacks as a voting block.
The centrists who run away from the liberals and activists at every turn.
Don't make us liberals your enemy. Well at least, the enemy of blacks. We've been cut out of the action too these past 30 years.
I live in Seattle but jeez it sure seems to rain a lot more on you than it does me. Obama's the nominee, he's delivering his message better than anyone we've had in half a century, he's expanding the party better than anyone we've had in almost that long, and he 's going to win in November.
We don't want Obama voting for our nominee, we MADE HIM our nominee.
Sorry if that rains on your liberal bashing parade.
Easily trumped in the last half century by John Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, Lloyd Bentsen, and probably Al Gore. It's easy to get "star struck" in your own planetarium....!
It's not liberal blacks or whites. 93% of blacks voted Democrat in the last election. Go out and try to find 12 blacks who don't want the borders closed. Speaking of the number 93%, a recent poll reflected that when asked if (you) would want a federal energy agency on the level of NASA , 93% stated "yes". Recently Obama met with a group of "Mexicans" in L.A. who are (organized) in support of the continuing massive illegal entries that are destroying the carrying capacity of our environment, infrastructure and public insitutions. He told (them) that they reminded him of the families who came through Ellis Island. Recently Obama said he'd "grow" our energy security, i.e., food as fuel, proven to be catasprophic for the soil, birds, water, and food supply - something most scientists and millions of Americans were, otherwise, morally against for the past two years. I have to vote for Obama rather than a pathological cretin like McCain because the U.S. has only two political parties and no viable representative government such as exist in many other nations. Obama is among the best in a lair of mostly treasonous rats and morons. I know we're all giggly that the clueless Obama is not a international fascist gangster, warmonger and rabid torturer, but it takes more than that. Perhaps there's no citizens left at the top of the economy or politics that don't exist almost totally behind the ball and disconnected from reality.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT OTHER MINORITY; MEXICANS ? I GUESS McCAIN WILL HAVE TO REPRESENT THEM.
But you know there was that moment...
Right after the first uproar over the Rev. Wright snippets, when Obama chose treat America as a country full of honest grown-ups and to address the bigger issue of race rather than focus on a few quotes from a guy who wasn't running for everything.
And for one beautiful days, people were actually talking about it and listening and maybe even seeing things in a way they hadn't seen before.
And then every made a fuss over Obama calling his grandmother a typical white person, and Hillary said he wouldn't have been her pastor, and Stephanopoulus asked who loved their country more, and Wright told Moyers that Obama was responding as a politician and everybody just went back to acting silly.
My mother used to say that a "bleading heart" liberal was often--not always--one whose heart "bleeds", but always relatively safely, and comfortably, and with someone else's blood."
I think that Obama's candidacy has exposed, that within the Democratic Party and Liberal Chic Establishment and backroom boys and girls, the narrow selfishness and narcissism of competing "identity politics" cohorts ( MY groups is SO special because I, ME ME, ME am in it or am a wannabe). That is precisely what oligarchs and plutocrats rely on--divide-and-rule--along with "bread and circus" and other weapons of mass distraction and deception. That is how, throughout history, the few are able to ruthlessly rule the many and even have the many assist in their own enslavement.
That is Obama's message.
D'accord! Most Americans apparently find it too wearisome/troublesome to analyse/consider issues with the result that candidate selection is less discriminating that of picking a cabbage.....for.....
If Hillary referred to the color of her parents there would be uproar.
There is truth in what you say. IN olympia washington however that seems not to be the case.
Very thoughtful blog. This Democratic Primary election has especially drawn the picture very clearly. For years, Black Democrats have known all along that our loyalty has been pretty much taken for granted. That's why President and Senator Clinton felt comfortable enough dismissing our vote as if to say: "Oh well, go ahead...we understand your support of Barack...but after we denigrate him with every discription that comes 'coded in black' we know you'll be back...because you have no where else to go." The 'codes' worked for a while especially for the remaining base of her voting block. Codes like: 1. He's not experienced enough 2. He's not qualified, 3. He's not like everday people 4. He is unelectable, and 5. White working people won't vote for him. Well, it didn't work. He will be the nominee and highly likely our next President. And truthfully, racism won't dissappear in Jan. 2009. But I think he has demonstrated, that in spite of it, we can work through it in the future.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you on the Plantation mentality of, not so much the Left Wing of the party but the Upper Escellons of the Party. Since the 70's, the Democratic elites have played the African American base the same way that Republicans play rednecks and bible thumpers. Lots and Lots of pandering words to get the vote but no delivery.
When Obama knocked Clinton off the throne you could see the enraged attitude in the HRC campaign. The help was sitting in massa's chair and massa didn't like it one bit. Bill started dealing race cards like a riverboat gamber, practically spitting with rage. After all, HE was the first black president. Who did this upstart think he was?
But let's not blame it all on the white liberals. After all, they had a lot of help from the enablers like Jackson and Sharpton - loud divisive rhetoric that produced very little for the community. Just like Rush and the late Fallwell were enablers for Republicans to keep the ignorant white masses in line.
That's what I love about Obama. He makes a call to all Americans to act like Americans and pull together.
Maybe that's why I'm more comfortable thinking of myself as a progressive rather than a liberal. Because Liberal has lost must of it's original quality from years of abuse from the Democratic party.
I am part of what you would condescendingly (sp?) call the "ignorant white masses."
I am pissed off at the republicans. It seems every month or so I hear about some prominent republican trolling for gay sex in a bathroom, bangin' a hooker, cheating on his wife or taking a bribe. All the while they have created new entitlements, spent (via deficit) like drunken sailors on shore leave and haven't done a thing to protect religious liberty.
Yet, what am I to do? Do I vote for the party that has promised create new entitlements, pass economy choking new taxes and install judges that will continue to ostrasize those who wish to practice their faith?
If you asked me (and you didn't) I would tell you two things. One, the ignorant white masses aren't as dumb as you think they are. Two, those who believe like I do have been played but we are better off than if we voted for your guy.
You know, these judges aren't denying you any rights to practice your faith.
What they are doing is allowing people like me to not feel forced to follow your faith.
There's a difference, see?
Why should what I do with my life matter to you? I would never walk into your home or your school and tell you or your kids that you should be worshipping, oh, I dunno, Siddharta. I wouldn't try to force anything I believe on you.
And should you decide that how I live isn't for you, I don't feel ostracized? Why should I? We're all guaranteed the same equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, aren't we?
I never understood that. It's so upsetting. How will it hurt you or anyone else if I do what makes me happy, as long as I am not killing/stealing/raping/etcetera? How will it affect your marriage if two men who live all the way across the country get married? Why would you even let the consensual actions of two adults who aren't bothering you devalue your life? Don't you determine the value of your life?
I guess I just don't get Republicans. Maybe these aren't your beliefs, but they are common themes. I just feel like if I can pay my taxes and obey the laws and allow people to live their lives, that I should be given the same respect.
Sorry, but If you believe that democrats are "the party that has promised create new entitlements, pass economy choking new taxes and install judges that will continue to ostrasize those who wish to practice their faith" then you've drunk the republican kool-aid and you've made my point about ignorant white masses.
By the way, I'm white and I used to be a right wing Reagan conservative. But I looked around and discovered a different world outside my little white republican universe.
So I used to be one of the Ignorant White Masses. But I decided to drop the ignorant part.
It would take letting go of your cynicism and have a little Hope that we can organize our neighborhooda and come together to solve our own problems.
Is that a radical idea?
We have to fix our schools. Obama always says that people know that government cannot solve all of our problems. Education is an investment in the country and people want the government to make sure we give our children a good education. Our school are a disgrace and we are falling behind other countries. He also says to turn off the tv and take away the video games and do homework , get involved at school. Is that radical?
College cost have been rising fast and his proposal to give college students 4k a yr. for 4 years.
for college costs. In return the student must give 2 years service to the country either in the military, peace corp, food banks, habitat for humanity etc....We invest in them aand they invest in the country. A terrible thing?
He is going to restore Habius Corpus and the rest of the Constitution after the Bush decimation of it. (Obama was a constitutional law professor for a decade and worked as a civil rights lawyer.) All good things to my thinking. Check-out his website.
In closing, are you really better off now than you were 8 years ago?
Keep getting played or take back your country I choose the latter.
I don't think that the word "liberal" has lost anything because of "years of abuse from the Democratic party". There has been a quasi-campaign from the Republicans to redefine the word "liberal" as something negative, as in "tax and spend liberal". The old definition was closer to what we now term "progressive" as in someone interested in solutions and answers and an economic structure that depends on prudent economic practices that relies on both controls and the free-market.
When people use the word "liberal" I never know which kind the mean, FDR liberal? Bill Clinton liberal? JFK liberal? Jefferson liberal? Truman liberal? Johnson liberal? Some I would not define as liberal.
Soon it will be Obama liberal? Because that will be the 'smear'.
Obama '08
Actually, "Liberal" has been attacked & it's meaning distorted by the Press, Republicans & the ignorant for as long as I can remember (and I'm 66) to the point that when any (well known or acknowleged Conservative said or did anything particularly stupid - Conservatives rushed to accuse him of "Liberalism"
But whats in a name? I'm glad you call yourself Progressive!
This "liberal left" you speak of....that is not the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is actually "centrist" at best ("centrist" being where most Americans are on the issues).
Obama is VERY impressive in his ability to not fall into any stereotypical traps as a black candidate. If he falters for a second, the media will be all over him. He has done well to avoid such traps and his composure is something for all to aspire to.
BTW, that Republican Obama wearing a cowboy hat, on horseback, in Texas, image isn't going to work. Especially if he's touting an anti-war message.
Come on and get real.
John, is it possible you're channeling me?
Seriously, It's a little spooky how often you come out with a blog that says exactly what I've been thinking. But here you've done it again.
I think you're a little hard on the white lefty heroes, though. Each party has baggage. Republicans held back civil rights as long as they could, so we should be careful not to praise them too highly when talking about issues of race. Their behavior back then was disgusting. And Democrats, for all their cultural flaws, were at least trying to do the right thing. There's history there.
But I agree. At this point in time, I meet more Democrats who have a problem with Obama's race than Republicans. And I absolutely agree that the Hillary gang is pissed that Obama isn't willing to take his proper place - second. behind the Clinton heroes who saved him and his kind.
You're bang on, John. But it hurts. It hurts.
By the way, make sure you're channeling me on November 4th. :-D
I would suggest you go back and look at the vote tallies by party in those sixties era civil rights votes.
But be careful! It might fuck up your whole world view.
I tell you, it sure did fuck up mine. I couldn't believe the insane amount of Republican support for the movement.
What happened?
I know.
Funny isn't it.
People spew about things with no facts at all.
Reminds me of the guy on Hardball last night.
"its the same thing... its the same thing Chris... its the same thing..."
never look for facts, we dion't need no stinkin facts.
The things I have read on Huffington Post by so called Progressives using neocon language and tactics, misinformation, distortion, parroting and plain lies attempting to smear, insult, and prove how quick they are with insults I guess... nice thing to aspire to... has blown my mind.
I'm not saying I know a hell of a lot but I do research to the best of my ability on the issues and on the candidates.
PS.
World view?
We don't need no stinking worldview!
LOL
Thank you for correcting me. You're absolutely right, I am surprised. In my defense, I didn't live in this country then and was foolishly believing what liberals were telling me!
Here are the numbers:
The original House version:[6]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[6]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[6]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Origins
My husband is saying "but but but those were Dixicrats, not Democrats!!"
I'm rolling my eyes.
Lesson learned.
Hate to say it, but as a 'liberal' (Asian, female), I have encountered precisely that sort of hypocrisy among self-proclaimed liberals. Not all, of course, but enough to say that one's political affiliation doesn't always say as much as one might think about their actual behavior when dealing with someone outside their group, whatever it may be. I never forgot one particular instance when I roomed with two men, one Democrat and one Republican (in a famously Democratic state). I immediately assumed I'd get along with the former, and we seemed to share points of view. But when push came to shove, the Democrat was selfish, egotistical and cared only about his 'crowd' (forcing his roommates out of the apt when he had a party), and the Republican supportive and caring.
Clinton and her surrogates' behavior has brought all this to the fore.
People are people you know. Some happen to be jerks and be a Democrat. I think most people don't consider their party affiliation before behaving badly. But I think this guy is way off broad brushing as he does. It leads him to some silly conclusions.
What do you mean by "Clinton and her surrogates' behavior has brought all this to the fore?" I can't tell whether you're criticizing her or defending her against Obama's 'hypocrisy'. It's cryptic and I'd like to understand your point.
I find more often than not, the opposite of what you described. However, I must admit, some of my most respected friends have declared they will never vote for Obama because he will just admit unqualified blacks into his administration and beyond.
Unbelievable, that they cannot separate Obama from Sharpton and Jackson, but they can't. (Dinkens as Mayor in the early '90's just doesn't help, though)!
As a liberal, I don't like the description of your roomates. I've only seen in my experience Republicans that care more for their 'crowd' than Democrats. Basically, though, when it comes to money, I think most people are just human, and humans are naturally greedy. Wall street comprises Dems and Repugs, after all.
Hmmm.... I seriously doubt friends would call me a racist, but, speaking as a white liberal, you must know that Obama, with his lack of experience, lack of commitment to an issue, avoidance of voting for a possibly controversial issue and general desire to play the race card whenever possible has sunk him as a candidate for me. He could have actually chaired his assigned committee once( you know the one about the forgotten and losing war in Afghanistan) and I would have considered voting for him. He could have voted to support his senior senator's motion for a censure of Bush and I would have voted for him, but he chose not to do either-probably because he would have risked making a very visible and possibly wrong decision. So, please, do not consider a researched opinion counter to yours evidence of racism. The implication you make is that you consider all whites to be racist, which, by definition, would make you a racist as well.
To follow your reactionary comments, since you do not support Clinton, you most likely are sexist, but, that, apparently, remains "okay" to be
blah blah blah. we all have to settle, he's not perfect but he's our guy. besides, FDR was considered a wealthy white political insider and he became the most liberal and populist president of our time. we never get the perfect candidate that we want. but it's up to us to try and push the president in the right direction. he's got negatives, so what? worse than a McCain presidency? it's actually kind of arrogant of you. politics is about compromise. it's not like Obama is Boss Tweed.
Thank you, bigbingtheory. I am tired of division. Remember people, 'we are the change we've been waiting for'. It's not like Big Papa Obama is going to grant you 3 wishes. No president ever does or will. Obama just will help us make some real changes possible. Hopefully.
Obama '08
Can you cite, with a link, a single occasion which OBAMA has played the "race card"? Just curious, as I have watched him closely and he has been careful to never claim he is being picked on for being half black....
with his lack of experience,
He's been in elected office for four years longer than Clinton has.
avoidance of voting for a possibly controversial issue and
What are you talking about? What the present votes in the Illinois Senate - if so, you obviously know nothing about how the Illinois Senate differs from other state's congresses or the US congress. (A present vote is a vote against a bill because a constitutional majority is required for a bill to pass in the Illinois senate.)
As for the vote of censure - guess who else didn't vote for that? Clinton! That's right.
Try again.
general desire to play the race card whenever possible has sunk him as a candidate for me.
When has he done that? When. Name one time when Obama has done that.
To follow your reactionary comments, since you do not support Clinton, you most likely are sexist, but, that, apparently, remains "okay" to be
Speaking of cards, Ms "I'm your girl"/the boys are picking on me/in the kitchen/testicular fortitude would know something about that, eh?
"do not consider a researched opinion"
Well right back at ya. I see you on here all the time saying we drink Kool Aid. So don't assume we haven't done as much research on both candidates. Clinton dishes out more pandering tripe than any politician I have seen in my lifetime and you people have no problem eating it up.
Are you going to comment on any of the specific points he made in regards to Obama or just sling mud?
There are glaring holes here, and to ignore them is to invite gop attacks. That's what's happening now with Bush in Israel.
You thought HRC was tough? Hahahaha.. where have you been?
I have never ever heard Obama place the race card. Hillary is the one who has played that card. I can understand not wanting Obama to be president because you don't think he's qualified. But don't twist things around just because you're so blinded by the fact that a woman's running for president, you haven't stepped back to see that she is a hypocrite both when it comes to feminism and the whole race card issue. All the negative campaigning in this primary has been at Hillary Clinton's instigation, including the issues of race, which the media picked up on and ran with, not Obama.
Regarding sexism: That's lame. It's like my black students students who don't work telling me I've given them a failing grade because they're black, when my entire class is composed of black students, most of whom don't get failing grades.
I am a woman who does not want Hillary Clinton to be president MAINLY because I consider her a hypocrite when it comes to feminism. A true feminist would not need to ride on her husband's coattails to get into the white house, but would try to become president on her own merits. Everytime Hillary has touted her own credentials, it has been as the First Lady, not her credentials as a senator. Thanks to her own silence on her years in the Senate, I have no idea what she actually has accomplished that is relevant to the presidency.
Once again living proof that astroturfing really works and Axelrod is king.
Try the day after New Hampshire when Jesse Jackson Jr. tried to make Hillary's tearing up a racial issue.
Or how about taking a statement that Bill Clinton made, that all the pundits were saying but the second Bill Clinton said it it was racist.
That was the day that Axelrod turned the election and do not think they weren't waiting for it.
That was SC. BTW. I was a huge Obama supporter back then, I didn't like his passive aggressive slams of Hillary, his use of neocon talking points against her, his manipulativeness but I hung in there. Even after the race card I hung in there... but his talk is not his walk, he plays politics very well and don't tell me he doesn't know the ropes. He frames it differently, he is definitely inspirational and changing things but he is doing it with all the calculation of a Chicago politician. Axelrod astroturfs for a living, works with Daley, shapes reality. He dehumanized Clinton... well, he just grabbed onto the neocon narrative and you followed along.
I'm particularly interested in the causal use of terms like 'liberal' and - especially - 'Left' to describe American politicians in public discourse and the media. The number of US public figures who are really 'left wing' or even 'centre-left' in global terms could be counted on the fingers of one hand (with several fingers to spare). It is particularly odd that 'left' and 'liberal' should be used interchangably, as in this particularly slackly-reasoned article, when in fact many 'conservative' politicians in the US oppose free-market reforms, and even the most 'liberal' politicians advocate a very weak and watered-down form of social security.
Why do Americans not have a serious debate about economics? Why does 'the Left' (if such it can be called) in the States not use words like 'redistribution', 'progressive tax', 'public sector' - dare I say it? - 'social justice'? Perhaps because they're too tangled in ongoing debates about gender, race, sexuality, and religion - questions which have already been settled in most other Western countries. It is also ironic that the Democrats are so busy trying to work out whether their candidate is 'elitest' that they have no time to address the real question that Americans should be asking: why is the economic and social gap between 'the elite' and 'the many' continuing to grow? The subject that needs to be tackled in America is inequality across race lines. The question is, do the Democrats have the courage to address it? I'm not holding my breath.
It's a common tactic of the right in this country. Anything resembling liberalism is called communist, socialist, or Marxist in a very casual way. What they fail to comprehend is that those groups represent a tiny sliver of the left. Moderates and populists are also lumped in with this group. Look at Edwards treatment by the media. He's against corporate malfeasance but that earns him the reputation as being anti-business. The middle has slipped to the left. But don't worry it's starting to slide back.
It's hard to talk about it on T.V. in 45 second sound clips. Look what happened to Obama when he tried.
Vote Obama
He Tried
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
