E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWith the conclusion (it seems) of the Shirley Sherrod story, the big papers all focus on the issue of race. Here’s the New York Times: “No matter how hard his White House tries to keep the issue from defining his presidency, it keeps popping back up, fueled in part by high expectations from the left for the first black president, and in part by tactical opposition politics on the right.”
The Washington Post: “Two years ago, in a powerful speech in Philadelphia, presidential candidate Barack Obama warned that Americans will not be able to overcome their divisions if they continue to ‘tackle race only as a spectacle.’ This week, however, the subject of race returned to the forefront as just that: A spectacle over a selectively edited Internet video that led to the hasty firing of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod for seemingly making racist comments. Then came a rush of recrimination and vindication when a fuller version revealed that she had actually been giving a speech about overcoming prejudice.”
In response to the Sherrod story in an interview with ABC, Obama said he told "my team" to make sure "that we're focusing on doing the right thing instead of what looks to be politically necessary at that very moment. We have to take our time and think these issues through." Also: Sherrod says she's considering suing Andrew Breitbart. And Ann Coulter, by the way, says Breitbart was the victim. "The whole key to this story is that Andrew Breitbart was set up," she said on Fox.
The AP looks at the politics being played with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the influence of the Heritage Foundation on Republicans.
"Federal investigators have identified several dozen Pentagon officials and contractors with high-level security clearances who allegedly purchased and downloaded child pornography, including an undisclosed number who used their government computers to obtain the illegal material, according to investigative reports," the Boston Globe reports.
So liberals don't like OMB pick Jacob Lew, either? "They suspect Jacob “Jack” Lew may share an affection for market-driven reforms they say were too popular among Clinton’s staff and that he would support cuts to Social Security and Medicare," The Hill writes.
Leave a Comment:
First Read is now guilty of the same thing as FOX. How can you say this is about race? It's about misinformation and media corruption. To switch the core issue for the sensational is irresponsible and duplicitous. A man, Andrew Breitbart, doctored video to incite. You now take his issue of incitement and give it legitimacy instead of focusing on the lie. How is this any better?
This is not about race and it's certainly NOT the Obama agenda. BOOOOOOO!! This article stinks as well as the logic of whoever wrote it.
Totally agree with DrStangedog.
Breitbart is getting away with his deceit! Sherrod, Obama, NAACP, Sect of Agriculture, the media... all took the hit on this and Andrew Breitbart is hardly mentioned in the coverage.
Additionally, his stunt took the victory of Wall Street Financial Reform & unemployment benefits right off of the front pages of coverage...another victory for Breitbart's anti-Obama agenda.
Not to by cynical, but is the media unconsciously 'protecting' Breitbart because for better or worse, he's still in the same profession? Hope not.
I disagree with you. It is all about race. Ann Coulter today, Hasselbeck yesterday on the view, Breitbart, O'Rielly and most of Fox News and lets not forget Rush. They are all race baiters and therefore racists. They cannot stand the fact that we finally have a man with brains who is leading this country to better days and oh yah, he is black! Can't possible give a black man credit for anything can they?
Yeah, it's about race. It was about race from the beginning. Obama made it that way.
So...if you want to live by the sword you can die by the sword. That's what the Tea Party movement is about. You can call me all the names you want but I've been around politics for long enough and alive for long enough that no matter how many times you tell me two and two equal five, I'm never gonna believe it...not now, not ever.
We're gonna torpedo the Democratic majority this November. Obama is next and we WILL get him.
And another thing!
Obama is taking the party down with him. I think that's clear...and if you think the party fathers (Tad Devine, the Kennedys, Tony Coehlo, that crowd) are going to allow this interloper who just showed up on the national scene about four years ago to destroy a 230+ year old organization, you're nuts.
The best possible scenario for conservatives right now would be to run their campaigns and raise their money but otherwise stand back and let the Democrats' infamous circular firing squads begin. The House and Senate leaders will blame Obama and vice versa...and then you'll see that split we've seen oh so many times over the years. They lose the white vote, then control of Congress and all hell breaks loose. It's always the same. It'll always be the same.
One would think the Democrats would have learned that from the Supreme Court's evisceration of much of the New Deal. Americans simply will not tolerate Western European style taxation and government control of things here. It's not who we are. This isn't the United States of San Francisco.
Did you know that .45 caliber ammunition is essentially out of stock in northern California? People are SCARED and angry and as sure as I'm sitting here writing this they're gonna take it out on the incumbents at the polls this November.
And don't bother calling me names! I've made six figures working in the tech profession for years and years. We have three German cars in the driveway and no debt and our school loans are paid off and I don't have to do anything I don't want to do...and that includes humoring you!
So, CNN does a national poll on Obama(he's upside down by three points,in case you're interested), and the questions after the top-line are mostly about race.
The only question I found really interesting was that, when those who disapproved were asked if they disapproved because he was too liberal, or not liberal enough, the overwhelming majority said too liberal. Not liberal enough got ten per cent.
This, by the way, is for those who consistently carp that not enough questions are asked about why people disapprove of his job performance. The questions are asked-you simply don't go below the toplines.
That 10% would get the president a few percentage points closer to 50% and I think get him rightside up. Think that 10% is gonna vote Republican?
Yep President Obama needs to make sure that the presumption of innocence is maintained until someone is proven guilty. Just because the liars at Fox and Freaks goes bonkers over one of their racist rants against black people to embarass our first black president doesn't mean the Democrats have to immediately panic and make stupid rush judgments. From now on when Fox and Freaks cries the racist sky is falling Democrats need to ignore them and focus on going after the ranting wightwing racists as the guilty party.
President Obama didn't inflame the racial tensions, it's been the facist racist repugnant ones who have gone all crazy over it. Time to tell the rightwing racist trash to calm down and grow up. Time to prosecute Fox and Freaks and Racist Breitbart for inflaming the racial tensions.
I'm glad that Shirley Sherrod is contemplating a lawsuit against Racist Breitbart and Fox and Freaks. Hopefully the NAACP joins in the tort fun as they were the real target despite what Shirley is trying to say now that she was teh target. Nope Shirley was just provided the convenient ammo for Racist Breitbart to trash the NAACP with.
That's where media corruption comes to play. The reason we have a Black President is because the country is in such dire straits due to the previous administration. Since Obama took office he has been stonewalled by the Republicans. Why isn't the topline GOP: All about race. Name another President that the GOP blocked on every turn. Name another President that any Supreme Court member articulated disagreement during his speech. Name another President that was called a liar on the same floor. There is a theme in the opposition but ownership is being shifted to the President? Again I say, BOOOOOO
Excellent post, DrStangedog
It might be hard for those on the east coast to understand this, but in Oklahoma there is a segment of the white population that can't get over the fact that a black man is president. Remember, Oklahoma was the only state in the union where EVERY county went for McCain. It is troubling. Most local Republicans here are just running on an anti-Obama platform...no mention of what they WILL do, just on 'NO' to Obamacare, etc. It's embarrassing...or a poor reflection on our education system. Fox News is BIG here (unfortunately).
Well DrStrangedog of short memory, one just needs to look at the statements by the likes of Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Braney Frank, Ted Kenedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, ad nausium while GWB was President to find calls of liar, intellegence slams, you name it, they did it. Even though Bush has a higher IQ than Gore or Kerry for sure.
Obstruction? GMAFB! That's all the dems did once they regained power in the legislature with GWB. They wanted to characterize the republicans as the do nothing party of no.
Media corruption? Let's ask John McCain and Sarah Palin about the media and their lies all setting up Obama for President.
The Supreme Court Justice said "That's not true" during an Obama State of the Union address because Obama was lying his ass off. I saw the address, did you?
Get real dog, you are smarter than this.
Same situation with Kansas politics. No goals, ideas, or positions - just anti Obama. Sad...
Lyn,
Kinda reminds you of the anti-Bush crowd of Democrats.
ChevsMark
Well DrStrangedog of short memory, one just needs to look at the statements by the likes of Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Braney Frank, Ted Kenedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, ad nausium while GWB was President to find calls of liar, intellegence slams, you name it, they did it. Even though Bush has a higher IQ than Gore or Kerry for sure.
see this is what we liberals are taking about, How soon do you consertives forget that Bush launched a war based upon lies(WMD) remember. they call him a lier because there were no WMB, then Bush said that even if there are No WMD we still needed to go get sadam out. lies all lies and cost us 4000 of our men and women, men and women who trusted the president not to send them to a war because of a personal vendidta between bush, his daddy and sadam. you say Bush has a higher IQ i hate to know what your is.
Interesting reading...
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004
The Shirley Sherrod incident is a sobering reminder that the left-wing media is foolish if they believe they can control the outcome of their continual playing of the race card.
With an electorate that is 75% white, but nonetheless, elected Barack Obama President of the United States by a majority vote, accusations of widespread racism are a huge mistake that will only result in alienation, anger and resentment, and hostility and mistrust...particularly in a country that has tried for decades to alleviate racial animus by enacting and enforcing mountains of civil rights legislation in a good faith effort to end discrimination.
Racism and culturalism are traits inherent to all humans regardless of skin color or ethnicity, and have been since modern humans first appeared on Earth some 100,000 years ago. You will never completely eradicate racism in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter. To pretend otherwise is dangerous.
In January of last year, most Americans, whether they agreed with the new President politically or not, were able to celebrate the enormous amount of social progress his election represented. The current effort by some on the political left to use race as a club to silence legitimate policy-based opposition to President Obama's legislative initiatives is ill-advised and will not end well. It cannot end well.
To his credit, President Obama appears to have little enthusiasm for the use of race as a political weapon, but his sycophants in the media either haven't gotten the message, or simply don't care about the negative consequences of their reprehensible behavior.
Let's hope they can be persuaded to stop the ongoing campaign of race-baiting before it's too late and irreparable damage is done.
Mixed Bag-you forget, these are the marching orders of the "journalists" on the JournoList. Mark Murray may not be a member, but he nontheless follows in lockstep with the gameplan outlined on that site.
The strategy for November is to tie Republicans to Bush-Paul Krugman has an article in the Times on that very subject. Wait and see how many articles are on First Read embracing that strategy.
Yet, we are supposed to believe that they revere their canon of ethics. Sure, I buy it. I also bought a bridge,cheap, from this guy who needed the money fast. I have a lease and everything-I'm going to erect my tollbooth today.
MIxed bag - your narrative on this 'scourge' or race is on the money - except for when you fell off your soapbox and figured it was the left-leaning media.
The fact of the matter is that it is the right-wing fringe that is making this an issue. Organizations like the NAACP have many WHITE people - and White organizations - that support it. So does that mean those WHITE people who support the NAACP are anti-white because of what the organization represents?
As you can see, that argument doesn't make any sense.
The issue is this - as Mixed bag correctly states, it builds animus between races that have been struggling for YEARS to get to a point where there IS no animus. Why are we so concerned about black-white issues when we have so many unattended AMERICAN issues?
This is a dangerous game that the right-wing - and Fox News - is playing. This sort of 'issue' may destroy this country - from within. When there is a smoldering pile of what is left of America, will the right-wing say that they have 'won'? What exactly have they 'won'?
We CANNOT - and should not fall for this. America is better than that.
Mixed bag , you are so right. The left cannot justify Obama's policies with reasonable arguments so they can only fall back on the "r" word. So lacking in honesty and commen sense.
Sorry, Pietro-
I said exactly what I meant to say. My observations aren't based on what I've viewed on Fox News...they're based on what I've witnessed in viewing many hours of MSNBC's prime-time political coverage.
Yesterday I spoke of the fact that Hardball's Chris Matthews has made the theme of race-based opposition to the Obama agenda a cornerstone of his show. I know for a fact that Matthews is way too smart not to recognize that conservatives are going to have problems with President Obama's policies regardless of the color of his skin...to ignore this, and present an endless parade of "contributors" like Gene Robinson, Joan Walsh, Jonathan Alter, Richard Wolfe, and others who peddle this lie about the predominant reason for political opposition to the policies of this Administration is despicably cynical.
Matthews' slanted coverage, and his wild speculation as to the pervasive racist sentiment within the Tea Party has been disgraceful, and he ought to be ashamed of the divisive nature of that coverage.
And, this phenomenon is by no means confined to MSNBC...it's far more widespread than that.
When you read the discussions between the members of Ezra Klein's Journolist, a now-defunct group of progressive "journalists" and other left-wing "thinkers", where it was suggested that the best way to neutralize the Reverend Wright issue was to accuse prominent conservatives of being racists, you get just a tiny glimpse into the mindset that I'm referring to.
You're entitled to your self-deception about who is really doing the bulk of the race-baiting in America today.
I have no such illusions, however.
Mixed bag - as far as race-baiting is concerned, it really DOESN'T MATTER who is doing it. Your argument is that outlets like MSNBC (specifically Chris Matthews) is a left-wing conduit for race-baiting is a canard and i disagree. The mere fact that less than 4 days ago Fox 'News' ran with the Sherrod story and we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Look - I don't care WHERE race baiting is coming from. We can argue this petty point until we are blue in the face. What I was taking from your post was that the race-baiting was NOT cool and should not be tolerated - by ANYONE.
Normally, I think you are wrong and call you out. This time, I actually AGREE with your main premise, and you want to bait me into an argument about where the race-baiting is coming from?
Mixed Bag, have fun arguing with yourself because there is no sale here.
Actually, Pietro-
You began our exchange of views. I would not have initiated a dialogue with you based upon previous encounters, and the likelihood that little would be gained by the interaction. Who needs the aggravation, with such a small prospect of meaningful debate as a reward?
That said...it DOES matter where the race-baiting is coming from.
But, at least you've been able to grasp half of what I've said.
So, I guess we're done.
Maybe...
Actually Democrats don't have to tie Republicans to Bush anymore for wins in November. Republican candidates are doing a great job self destructing by simply opening their mouths. November may gain you one or two seats in the Senate and maybe 20 in the house but Democrats will retain control. Unless you become the party of Lincoln again and stop acting like the "Racist National Committee" you are done until 2014 or 2016.
Actually, Mixed bag - It really DOESN'T matter where the hatred is coming from. What matters is that the hatred is tarring ALL of us - including you and me - and it doesn't have to be like that.
I still think the premise of what you were saying is correct. You are wrong about arguing about where the hatred come from, like you are wrong about so many things that you and I discuss.
You know how much I relish saying - and proving - you wrong.
Take your victory, Mixed bag, and enjoy it. I am sure you and I will tangle over other issues later.
So, I guess we ARE done.
Maybe.
How about if we just agree to this policy; no one gets fired based on what Scumbag Breitbart puts on his blog! If Breitbart won't fact-check, someone should do it for him!
Clearly in an effort to quickly end criticism on the right that was only going to increase Vilsack (or others?) acted too quickly. However, despite the criticism of Vilsack/WH for terminating Sherrod prematurely one needs to realize how things are, not how they should be. Think of the Swift Boater false claims against Kerry. If polled a large number of Independents (not right wing fringe) would indicate they believed there is a real debate regarding whether Senator Kerry deserved any of his purple hearts. Due to the slowness of the MSM to shoot down the lies, and the tendency to present "two-sides" to all issues, even when the issue doesn't have two honest sides, a falsehood has become generally accepted, or wide spread, reality. In politics perception (even one that is 100% false) becomes reality. Just as a newspaper correction days later is ineffective in undoing the original error, once the Breitbart video began receiving major coverage in the right wing media, it would have been extremelydifficult to correct the damage, had the events played out in the normal fashion, and had Sherrod not been fired prematurely.
Ironically, if the events had unfolded the way they should have it would have ended worse for Sherrod, and the administration. The correct (in a perfect world) waywas for Sherrod to be placed on administrative leave (She admitted that this was proper to give the USDA time to investigate- everyone acknowledges if the Breitbart snippet represented an accurate portrayal of Sherrod's views termination would be in order). During the time period that the USDA took to review the matter (one would expect they would normally take a few days) Fox and right wing media (blogs, and radio) would go nuts about the racist in the USDA. While Fox was covering this the "respected media" (CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC etc.) would not show the video, or report the controversy just as they didn't jump on the ACORN story while Fox and the rest of right wing media went nuts. By the time the WH/USDA put forth the truth about Sherrod's March speech to the local NAACP those who listen to the right wing sources would believe to their core that Sherrod was a racist, and Obama is anti white. The MSM to varying degrees would play portions of the tape, or discuss that in context Sherrod wasn't racist, but it is highly unlikely they would have used precious air time to play the full video, (look at how little time is normally spent on a story), the question of whether Sherrodwas a racist who wouldn't help White's wouldn't become generally known as a lie, but a matter of perception. Sherrod would have been forever damaged as a result.
However, because the NAACP condemned Sherrod, and she was fired by the USDA so quickly, and unjustly, CNN did something it doesn't normally do (just go look at CNN's coverage in the aftermath of the false swift boat coverage to see how CNN normally reacts), and did a good investigation. After interviewing Sherrod and the White Farm family, and then viewing, and showing much of the actual speech in context, the story immediately turned from Sherrod is a racist, but a victim of a false charge. Because CNN interviewed the White farmers, and aired much of the full video, to show the actual beauty of her story, the right wing lie was clearly and refutably exposed. Fox was unable to continue to claim Sherrod was a racist, etc, and instead tried to blame the WH for treating her unfairly. Think of one other time when Fox did such an immediate turn around. Think of how long the crazy birth story has gone on, but because CNN did its job (which I doubt it would have done if Sherrod hadn't been fired), even Fox, Limbaugh etc couldn't continue to claim Sherrod was a racist. This was the fastest amount of time in which a target of the right wing was exonerated. And maybe the only time when a target has been completely exonerated. Had Sherrod not been wrongly terminated it is unlikely that CNN would have done what it did on Tuesday, and Sherrod would have had her image permanently tarnished within a large segment of the country.
I doubt CNN, and other mainstream media will learn the lesson here, which is not the WH was too quick to condemn Sherrod, but that the MSM has failed to timely investigate false right wing stories, and fully and completely expose them on air. If the MSM learns this lesson and if CNN's cioverage on this issue Tuesday becomes the norm our country will be better off!
Hawkeye - nice synopsis. Very nicely done.
When I read this sentence, "No matter how hard his White House tries to keep the issue from defining his presidency, it keeps popping back up..." three different views pop into my head. One, maybe the Obama administration doesn't want to tackle the issue of race, something like, if you ignore it it will go away [...than why is Glenn Beck still here]. Second, that maybe Obama feels that there are bigger issues out there: financial reform, unemployment, war, threats of nuclear weapons from North Korea, a staggering economy in general, etc. Third, maybe the tactical maneuver by the WH is to ignore the issue because they want to portray an image of "if we pretend there is no issue maybe other people will buy into it."
Any of these ideas could be plausible. I believe the most plausible is the second: that there are other issues that the Obama administration feels deserves/needs more attention than the issue of race. Do I agree with them? I do. I think that the New York Times and Washington Post are good, reliable sources of information. However, the signing of the Financial Reform has already long been forgotten, though just reaching its infant stage. Shirley Sherrod, the issue of race, Andrew Breitbart, and all the "he said" "she said" have made that so.
I thought everyone was so concerned with the economy three days ago, weren't you? Now, the issue of race has reared its ugly face once again. For the average person like me, as sad as it may sound, it's just another day because it's the nature of the beast [no, not Sean Hannity-news in general] Do you watch Glenn Beck? Why does he insist on repeatedly bringing up the issue of Woodrow Wilson being a racist? He's been dead for over 50 years. Is it to add fuel to the fire? I can see that:Glenn Beck striking matches just to watch them burn...
I'm not saying race is not a relevant subject that doesn't need to be addressed, it is and it does. But when you're the President and you inherit an economic crisis, health care in shambles, and a war-what would you do?
How much can you really ask of one person?
How much can you really ask of one person?
How about that he do the job he sought so eagerly?
He is doing his job and a great job. And it is tearing you apart to admit that a black man is succeeding in leading us to better days ahead.
What planet are you on addabanana,
"he is doing his job and a great job"
Shoving through legislation the majority oppose
Making people buy insurance
extending unemployment to lazy asses who wont get a job
spending money like a drunken sailer
driving a bigger wedge between races
redisributing wealth
protecting tne black panthers, naacp and acorn....all very corrupt
country is going to hell in a hand basket
so much for your black man leading us to better days.....what a trained seal you are
AnaBanana, what Obama is doing is leading his party to destruction and ensuring that we won't have another black president in my lifetime. That's precisely what's happening.
Don't forget to check out poorboyponderings.com!
Huh, so this is what a comments thread for a last place cable news channel looks like. Maybe if MSNBC took their views more main stream they wouldn't be such a laughing stock. Remember kids, only 20% of Americans identify themselves as Lazy Libscum; your views are not mainstream, and you will never ever win.
WE DID WIN! And we will retain our wins this November thanks to our great forward moving President, Barack Obama.
Actually section 8, MSNBC is usually ahead of CNN in ratings, but as Rachel Maddow pointed out cable news ratings (even Faux, I mean Fox news) usually gets beat in the ratings by NCIS re-runs on cable, and WWF wrestling. I doubt any American identifies themselves as Lazy Libscum.
Whether MSNBC ever consistently beats Fox in the ratings (or in the demographic that advertisers care most about) is an issue for the respective advertising dept.'s, I don't care what place MSNBC is in, I want honest intelligent people providing the news, not like those on Fox. True the blond on Fox & Friends is apparently very intelligent (she graduated from Standford with honors), but because she apparently thinks Fox viewers are so stupid, and wouldn't relate to an intellectual (conservative or liberal) she plays the role of a dumb blond. Think about it Fox viewers Fox programmers even think your intellectually challenged!
There continue to be rumors that Comcast wants to take MSNBC more mainstream, after the merger is complete sometime next year. I just saw Matthews on PBS this evening and he looked particularly unhappy when asked about his network's performance against Fox.
I think Chris might stick around after the merger if his health holds up but Olbermann, Maddow and a few of the others will have to find new homes. They won't fit under the new regime if what we're hearing is correct. ABC has all but closed down its news gathering organization worldwide. CBS is a little different but we heard rumors about a year ago of their combining news operations with CNN.
I suspect the suits at NBC miss having Tim Russert around. I'll bet they miss him a whole lot these days.
@hawkeyedemocrat
I hear what you're saying, but this is a business and Fox has stolen over a million viewers from the legacy networks in the last year alone. Eventually, you have to make a business case for your continued existence and increasingly there isn't one for the other networks especially CNN.
I could definitely see CBS and CNN coming together, or possibly CBS selling off its news division to CNN. Combining those resources would make some business sense and relocating all the personnel to Atlanta would lower their fixed costs of operation. It could happen...but Katie would have to learn to eat grits and fried chicken and barbeque. Perish the thought.
When I looked at the pictures of Obama on vacation with his family, in my home state, I was struck by how my brain sees the President as himself, Barack Obama, but I see his family as "Black" first, and as individuals, barely at all. I don't want to be racist, but clearly I am. Part of the challenge of being the first African American President (and Family) is being confronted with our inherent racism. I think familiarity helps - the more you see a Black family in the news, the more you start to see them as individuals, and the racism is worn away. But, man it's challenging, I have to admit. I don't like the fact I see the Obamas' race before I see them as individuals. It's my challenge too.
Amy, only an intelligent person could make such a statement. Thanks.
Amy - your post PROVES that you are doing the self-reflection that any learned person would. The fact that you see the First Family as the First BLACK Family has a lot to do with the vociferousness and emphasis on the 'BLACK' in that 'First Family' phrase that is broadcast 24/7. At some point (usually when you spend time AWAY from the States) you filter out that emphasis and see the First Family as they are - the First Family.
BTW - off topic - have you noticed how TALL the first daughters have gotten???
The first step to a cure is admitting you have a problem. It does not make you a lesser person. It makes you a wise one! Thanks for sharing.
The only role race has played in Obama's presidency, other than getting him elected, is that it has protected him from criticism. His being black has handcuffed anyone that disagrees with his actions, his words and his policies. There is no room for even the smallest of gray areas when speaking negatively about anything involved with his administration.
Why else do you think the current face of the Republican Party is a black man? Steele has ruffled many feathers on the right with his either inaction or misguided action. But any criticism aimed at the president from someone with lighter skin would immediately invoke cries of racism. Hence, only a black can criticize a black, its unfair, and quite honestly completely ridiculous.
I have never heard of either side promoting or disparaging the administration because of race, which makes the end of the first quote: “...fueled in part by high expectations from the left for the first black president, and in part by tactical opposition politics on the right" absolutely ridiculous. The right is bringing up the man to tear him down not because of his race but because of his lack of experience, which continues to be a glaring negative, day in and day out.
If you think my first sentence was racist, that he was only elected because of his race, honestly think about it after the upcoming mid-term elections. If there are a lot of democrats that exit its because of the mass number of people that went to the polls in 2008 for a party line vote, and the top of the ticket just so happen to say Barack Obama. I never said which race was voting, now who is the racist?
Please check out poorboyponderings.com. I disagree with almost everything he writes, but he does a great job, also he is poor so he needs your support.
I suppose the fact Obama was charismatic, highly intelligent and likeable had nothing to do with the fact he won the Presidency?
Great point...sometimes it's easy to look past the OBVIOUS...
Georgia Haley speaks the credo of the Tea Baggers, Obama was elected because he's Black. Georgia and those similar cannot see past pigment. It is the visual screen that blocks out a human being from being just that, human.
"Why else do you think the current face of the Republican Party is a black man?" I thought it was because he was qualified, but apparently the only qualification he needed was melanin. So my question to Haley is why should any non- white vote Republican?
DrStrangedog, why must you go immediately negative and distasteful with Tea Baggers epithet? I, unlike Amy B don't have to "see past pigment" when I see a human being before I see a color. She sees his family and thinks black. How awful of her. I see the family and I see a husband, wife and two happy kids. I see them holding hands and walking their dog, I don't think, oh my gosh look at them, even their dog is black. Grow up Amy, get with the times.
Michael Steele is head of the RNC because he is qualified, I never said he was put there for any other reason. I'm saying he isn't being replaced because of his race. The Repubs (I'm not one of them, thanks for assuming though DrStrangedog) would be lambasted for criticism from a white person. Look at what the left has done to people like Rush in his attempt to buy the St. Louis Rams, false quotes had a major impact.
Your final question, why should any non-white... how racist is that? You are basically calling all minorities racist; people vote based on qualifications and what is said on the campaign trail, not skin color. Thats how it should be.
Did I mention I'm black. Have a great day.
The difference between Amy B and You Georgia Haley is Amy B admitted to having a problem, the first step to a cure. She is much wiser than you are at this point. No one should judge her. She has already done it herself.
And what is the problem you are suggesting that I have?
The problem you have George Haley is that you automatically judged her in the negative for admitting she has a problem. That makes you as a black woman as bad as racists who judge you. I don't know your background. You may have every reason to hate white people and every reason to snip at them. Heck, I would forgive that in Shirley Sherrod because of her life experiences. I'm surprised she ever got beyond race but you, it doesn't appear you have. It may be excusable and it may not. I give you leeway on that but think before you judge someone for coming forward with a self admitted flaw. It is a step forward.
Georgia,
I disagree with you in whole. Obama is one of the most scrutinized Presidents I've known and it has nothing to do with his race, nor are people in general afraid to go after him. He's been scrutinized for the health care bill, financial reform, not doing enough to win the war, etc.
I'm also not sure where the connection is between President Obama and Michael Steele either. Steele has obviously made poor choices-and that's his choice and responsibility to atone for them or not to. He's also been criticized, as Obama has, from every direction, from every angle, in every form from whites to blacks.
The lack of experience, to me, has not played a role at all. Obama passed a health care bill that NO ONE said would get passed. He's tackled a war, a stagnant economy, and a former administration that was run by former bank CEO's-put in by your former Republican President. Even an experienced politician would have trouble with handling three seemingly catastrophic issues. To be honest, with what he inherited-he's done a pretty damn good job.
People criticize him without substance, validation, or any sort of relevant examples about what he's actually done or not done. Listen, there's always going to be something to pick at-it's life-no one is perfect-but sometimes people like Section 8 and yourself need to be more patient.
Why did you give George W 8 years and yet you can't even give Obama 2? Isn't it because of you Republicans we are in this very spot?
How much can you ask of one person, GeorgiaHaley?
First Read Proved my initial point...................................................
Relying on Op-Eds" from other news organizations just pushing another news organization's agenda without having done your home work
What good is media when you have no investigative reporting in your own organization
This is exactly what cause the injustice to Ms. Sherrod.......................................
It' time to hold first read and all news organizations responsible for what they print.
Ms. Sherrod would never had endured such racist treatment if responsible news was disseminated.
It's time to hold every news organization accountable for what it prints
Time to stop the "opining" on someone ele's opinion.
Opinions, opinions, the media has become a bed rock of opinions.
After all we have endured with Ms. Sherrod treatment, First read, there you go again.
Obama can not escape racism because he is the cause of it. He has played the race card over and over again. And BOO HOO that he failed to be a man and had the women fired and then blames it on someone else. He is the Blamer in chief after all. and Breitbart what the hell does he have to do with any of this he just reported the story. If you watch the WHOLE TAPE it is perfectly clear she was a racist. How many people suffered before she realized that WHITE FARMERS where people hurting too. I mean this whole thing is silly. If it had happened to a white women you would have stoned her to death by now or at least hung in eulogy. The Liberal press are hypocrites just like the Liberals in general. That is why no one listens to Liberal news papers, or TV news like CBS,ABC,or NBC any more by a margin of three to one they watch FOX. It is the only place left that isn;t die hard left and makes any attempt to be fair and balanced. Anyone who says different is a liar and or has not watched Fox News. Not the commentaries like beck, O riley although O riley is more than fair or Hannity who is straight up conservative. The NEWS at fox always gives you both sides and lets you the viewer decide with out trying to brain wash you to one point of view or the other.
Wade-512031
Let it Go, to call some one a racist you need proof. every thing some one does does not make them a racist, unless you your self is a racist, and look for any thing to call some else a racist. back in the day, reagan was not called a racist, or either bush, clinton was called by Conservatives the real first black president because Conservatives some how felt he would do more for minorities.
Be true to your self, Obama is not a racist and you know so, and you are not a racist either, your problem is you just can't stand to see a black man, as president, so you make your self feel Superior by calling him a racist. again just like Joanna you are a sad angry person and i really feel sorry for you.
GeorgeHale : Are you an Obama spokes person or something? I mean get real criticize him with out cause? He is the absolute worst president in American history. He has done nothing in 18 months except ignore the will of the people, waste three trillion dollars, loose 8 million jobs, bring the unemployment to 17 % real unemployment and 9,7 % reported unemployment, made the country weaker in every since of the word, refuses to do his constitutional duty and protect the borders and as a result is directly responsible for the murders of hundreds of us citizens from Illegal's not to mention the kidnappings, drug traffickers, rapes , robberies and then he is stupid enough to SUE they people that are trying to protect their citizens. He is a straight up racist and coward who blames everyone else for his failings. No legitimate criticism you sir are completely brain dead. 13 trillion dollars in debt, three trillion thrown out the window on wasted spending with nothing to show for it, refusal to concentrate on the economy as his first priority an now he has proven to be another hater of Israel and combative with England our two greatest allies. He is a disaster anyway you slice the cake. He has failed misseribly at everything he has toutched making it worse not better.
Wade,
Has he not passed the Health care bill? Has he not passed the financial reform bill-the debt was sure to increase due to the fact George W had buried us into a war where we continue to throw billions of dollars into it because nobody wants to call it what it really is-a lost cause. Unemployment was going to go straight down no matter who took office-because of what the conditions were before Obama even got in there-do your research 3 years back-and you''ll know this. The economy was set for a downfall-even before the election and everyone [excluding people like you] knew this. He knew he was going to have to take on what George W and his piss-poor administration had been so eloquently ignoring for 8 years. Could a clue, Wade. Obama didn't make this mess.
Wade- you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that there are at least 3 MAJOR legislative victories under this President's belt. All of your whining CANNOT take that away from him. All of your seething anger at this man will NOT change the laws of the land.
The more salient point is this - where was YOUR representation? Where were the GOPers - who seem to be more in line with your affiliation(s) - and why didn't THEY protect YOUR interest(s)? Why are you not angry with the same GOPers that sold you out? If you absolutely detest the Obama Agenda (and it seems that you do), when why aren't you working towards getting YOUR representation in place to change that agenda?
The fact of the matter is, Wade, that you feel powerless to change this agenda, so you lash out and bad mouth it. That's fine with me, as we still have the freedom of speech in this country. What takes away from your argument(s) is that you do not have anything that you can fall back on to advance YOUR agenda. You CERTAINLY do not have competent representation on Congress to even STOP the Obama Agenda.
So, Wade, I see these posts and instead of seeing someone who is deeply concerned about their contry, I see someone who is more interested in making political 'points'. Why? Its because there are no solutions or any salient thoughts explaining a position - ANY position.
Wade, I really don't care if you like me or not. I don't care if you disagree with me or not. I really don't care what you think. What I DO care about is dealing with people - with whom I may disagree - who have some ideas that MAYBE I can support.
You, Sir, are expousing hatred for hatred's sake.
Good Day.
Just because you see the skin color of someone as it is white or black or red does not in itself make you a racist. It is how do you treat or act with that person. Is it different do you treat a white person different than a black person. Do not confuse treating a black gangster looking person different than you would a white business man or a white gangster looking person different than a black looking business. That is not racism that is fear of gangsters. However if a white man and a black man have the same skills ,experience and or education and you show preference of one over the other than that is racist. that is why quotas are racist. Martin Luther King said judge a man by his character not the color of his skin. I know because I marched with him and I am American Indian most call white. So first understand what racism is before you start bunting it around. The NACCP by its name is a Racist organization, The KKK is racist, The BLACK PANTHERS by what they preach are racist hate group just like the KKK and the Nation of Islam by what they preach are anti Semitic, and racist as is Obama because he uses the race card every chance he gets.
He passed health care bill because both the house and senate are filled with Dems, nothing great there, more credit goes to Pelosi for that.
He has done nothing but hurt the economy with his policies. His "stimulus plan" has done nothing, and unemployment numbers are above where they said they would have been without a stimulus plan.
All he has done for the war is exactly what Bush did. SURGE, which Obama never admitted even worked.
Georgia Haley
Boy, you really don't like President Obama as a person, don't you? It doesn't seem to be his policies you have a problem with, it's HIM. Interesting. Well, aside from his policies, which I opposed, I also hated Bush as a person, so I guess I can understand your Obama-dislike. Some people just rub us the wrong way.
I have nothing bad to say about Obama the man. He worked his way up to where he is today, nothing was handed to him. He has done very well for himself and his family, the American dream.
It would happen more often if there were incentives for people to succeed instead of higher taxes and fees.
What have I written that says I hate Obama the man? I have problems with his policies, that is all.
Georgia,
I'm sorry, but the health care bill was no easy task no matter who was in Senate. The two weeks leading up to the bill experts and Congress both agreed that the bill had no chance of passing.
His stimulus plan has "hurt the economy?" Ford has shown five consecutive months of growth. 25% of small business, [business with 50-100 employees] the backbone of our country's economy, say they will be hiring more people this quarter than in the past two years. Some people just have no patience. The economy was nearing a depression-most of us think of this as just a word-not a lifestyle-a means of living. The "stimulus" cannot change things within two years-patience is what you need more than anything. How can the economy do a 180 degree turnaround in less than 2 years? You can't be serious if you think that's realistic. Oh, and by the way, Obama has had to deal with the worst natural disaster to hit America...but I suppose he hasn't done enough there as well.
Tell me, any of you, when was the last time a President took office with health care in shambles, a war we cannot and will not ever win, the economy nearing a depression, and the worst natural disaster to deal with. Obama's 2 years are unprecedented and should be judged that way. Anybody that believes otherwise should re-visit their history books.
You judge his policies and define his presidency/his legacy without putting any of this into an objective and perspective POV. if you want someone to blame-head to Texas-not D.C.
Wade-512031
The NACCP by its name is a Racist organization, The KKK is racist, The BLACK PANTHERS by what they preach are racist hate group just like the KKK and the Nation of Islam by what they preach are anti Semitic, and racist as is Obama because he uses the race card every chance he gets.
NAACP by its name is a racist organization!!! the national accociation for the advancement of colored people, what is racist by that name? i guess you have a problem with colored people part, sorry, its was whites who referee us as colored. we did not give our selves that name. i guess the christen leadership council is racist by there name, they only support christens right.
the quota system was put in to place because for example, after WW2 black pilots who tired to apply with the airlines were told they did not hire blacks. in Chicago in the 60s the city was 40% minority but less than 5& of the force was minority. the city did not hire black officers. so now you telling me that in these cases black were not qualified? i guess the black piolts who flew counless missions over europe, were requested by the 8th airforce to escourt bombers to there targets over germans were not qualified once they got home.
the quota system was put in to place not to pass over qualified whites people but not to leave qualified minorites behind.
classic example, i man who belong to our church was a architect for a black owned company. he served in WW2 with the tuskieair men, he stayed in the airforce during the Korean war, when he got out he tried to get a job with united, american, pan am, and was told they did not hire blacks, so he went finished college and became a architect, but again was told the firms did not hire blacks. Now who know where he could have been if companies hired blacks. you can't change history because today the quota system has left whites behind.
My Dad was a carpenter, when he can to chicago and finished highschool he hired to get in to the union but guess what, they uinion did not want blacks. he ended up being a meat cutter.
My great grandfather was a dentist, but guess what he could not find a job as a dentist because doctors did not hire blacks. he ended up working for the post office. for too long blacks had to take what whites gave them so don't blame the NAACP for the quota system, you can blame your father, grandfather and on and on.
So I guess it would be alright to have the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE?
How about the Chrysler white dealer's association.
How about Miss white america.
How about WET (white entertainment television)
Sorry Jeff, quota's are wrong and I contend that there are more black racist than white.
Excellent post Jeff! Reminds us of why NAACP exists and will continue to do so until no need for it exists. I hope my grandchildren are born to that reality.
proud republican-1888838
what ever flots your boat.
WET is fine, how about just calling it CBS or ABC, or NBC.
Sorry Jeff, quota's are wrong and I contend that there are more black racist than white.
Proud republican what evidence do you have to support this. just your gut feeling, or are you really having a problem with a BLACK president, are you SCARED he will correct the racial inequitied of the past. are you Jusrt scared and can't explain why.
Ok racist is a system where one race has the power to pass laws that effect other races. IE jim crow. Now i know this is hard for you to understand so i will make it simple.
chicago has a 60% minorty of hispanics and blacks. in chicago whites are the minorty. Last time i checked chicago has a white mayor and has had the same white mayor for the last 20 years. he is very popular with blacks and hispancs, personaly i think mayor daley has brought the city along way from his father.
New York, Minorties make up i think about 65& of the population, again last time i checked they have a white mayor, he just like mayor daley is very polular with minorities.
so as you said most blacks are racist, my 2 examples have blown you statement up. if there were more blacks who are racist than whites, chicago and new York would have black mayors, not white mayor who are again very popular with blacks and hispanics.
If there were more black racisr than white, why is it that your have 3 times as many white lawmakers than blacks. the mayor of LA is hispanic. he is very populas with white.
your race baiting to get me to say someting. it will not happen.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE i have no problem with that. see proud republican i'm not thereten by this, its you that has a problem with a Civil right Orgination that has been around for 100 years. that has the word colored, remember it was white what called blacks colored long before you and i was born.
AnaBanana-1782128
Excellent post Jeff! Reminds us of why NAACP exists and will continue to do so until no need for it exists. I hope my grandchildren are born to that reality.
what i don't understand is all the sudden people here on this blog are having a problem with the NAACP. i guess because we have a black president they feel the 100 year old orginzation is not needed. they resort to saying they are racist to try and make a case, but the feel threatened and i just don't understand why. also alot of people here did not give a sh*t about the NAACP but now that they are calling out the tea party they want to get rid of the NAACP.
eleminate any body that disagree with you.
american president have disagree with the NAACP i never heard this kind of talk untill a black president was elected.
It's disappointing and alarming to see a chain reaction like this, especially over an edited clip, occur on the Federal level.
Obama is nothing more than a small time politition from Chicago, that needs to go back home with his tail between his legs. No ones incharge in the white house, he's a joke. I am voting for Hilary next election, she has more balls than Obama.
She was my choice also Gary American however when she lost the primary I voted for Obama and unlike you I don't see any weakness in him. I think he is a good president. My plan is to assist his campaign and vote for him again. Hopefully he won't let me down.
The Obama administration has accomplished a lot, under incredibly difficult circumstances. But the level of animus towards him, especially from certain groups, is approaching the point of being unreasonably unreasonable. There could be a combination of reasons for this.
1) Obama is the post Bush transition President. Similar thing Happened to Carter. Much like the boyfriend/girlfriend who is exactly the type of person we should be with, but fail to appreciate because were still getting over our last bad relationship. All that anxiety, anger and frustration during the Bush Administration is still gushing. Probably more so from Bush Supporters who suppressed their frustrations out of loyalty while he was in office.
2) Most white people don't feel safe or able enough to acknowledge racism, but desperately don't want to be racists. So we are encouraged to deny it instead, or just notice when we see it in others.
3) Were scared. There's a lot of fear out there and it seems only natural to look to national leadership for some kind of reassurance that things will work out. Obama may be president but he's not the center of the universe. And it seems like he's being asked to arbitrate every little thing. He's the President, not our Grandparent.
Tacoma - nice post. The only question I have is this - WHY are whites scared (point #2)? The right-wing fringe is not helping, I get that. But when you have everything going your way - for YEARS - why are Whites so afraid?
Pietro,
They are scared because of negrophobia surfacing its ugly head again, thanks to a propaganda machine called Fox News.
Great post Tacoma.
When you argue about who's the best quarterback and someone disagrees they say you are wrong. When you argue about race and they disagree they say you are a racist. Makes people a bit reluctant to join the discussion.
Now I am a white southern male. I am so old I remember when rock music was made with real rocks. I have seen my share of racism both subtle and not. I also picked up at least a small quantity of common sense. I saw the edited version of the Sherrod video and did not jump to the conclusion its poster wanted. Ms Sherrod's words had the cadence and the tone of someone speaking in church. When someone "testifies" in a church they list their wrongs and the crowd agrees . Are they agreeing with the wrongdoing? Of course not. They are participating in the testimony. Mr Breibart would have us all believe they were agreeing with the racism and I simply didn't get that. I doubt that Mr Breibart believed it anymore than I did and thats why he had to edit the video. Shame on him and shame on everyone who bought it.This concludes the soap box portion of my day, thank you very much.
"What have I written that says I hate Obama the man? I have problems with his policies, that is all."
Well, I guess I jumped to the assumption you hate him personally, since the policies you cite are a continuation of the Bush policies, which Republicans supported, including the stimulus, withdrawing from Iraq and increasing troops in Afghanistan. Not sure what you think Obama has done to "hurt the economy" since the recovery took place after he bailed out the auto companies and banks, and directed federal funds to local infrastucture projects. Every economist I have seen quoted has said we dodged a Depression through the Obama administration's efforts. I don't see how doing nothing would have created more jobs, but if you think so, is there something from history that would provide evidence such a strategy works?
Like a poet...
Amy, if every economist you've heard about is saying that, you have more problems than I have time to discuss. Broaden your horizons and absorb information from more than one side of the isle. You owe it to all the other voters. You can wear blinders all you want, but deep down you know this isn't right.
Giving people an extension on unemployment is a reactive not proactive measure. How about cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses to allow them the room to hire more people.
Lets do something to create jobs, not give someone an excuse not to go find one.
Georgia Haley,
Both cutting the taxes on individuals and small business who create jobs have already been done by this administration. Please consider the fact that you aren't aware of this a sign that maybe you've been fed from a soup of misinformation.
"All that anxiety, anger and frustration during the Bush Administration is still gushing. Probably more so from Bush Supporters who suppressed their frustrations out of loyalty while he was in office."
Yes! I agree.
I agree with DrStrangeDog: The media has attempted to make race an issue throughout Obama's presidency. All the negative reporting on Sherrod, the police office and his birth place, why not focus on his achievements. It amazes me that with the previous candidates and all the obvious racism again American people, that no one even touched on the issue of race. The Southern based GOP has shown why racism existed and with the Tea Party Group, these people are the people from the 50's and 60's who knew only one thing, "Racism" I say move on. Let Obama do what he does best, work for the American people. If anything, I have never seen a smarter President in my lifetime and I am 58 years.