Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

(Announcement: The original FP entry was somehow deleted. I'm hoping it was due to yours truly in an incompetent attempt to edit the post (although I don't remember moving that fast; besides before you can delete a post, a confirmation prompt will automatically pop up) or some issue with the MyDD server. At any rate, my deepest apologies, dear readers. I know a lot of thought went into the 30+ comments that appeared under the original "Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter.")

The past week produced a string of events that, added up, have grave implications for the trajectory of the Obama administration.

To begin, there was the Christine O’Donnell triumph over a lame liberal Republican called Mike Castle of Delaware. Unable to grasp the enormity of the failure of this current Democratic Party, the media establishment was characteristically late to the realization that O’Donnell was serious. Without skipping nary a step, the same folk rushed to their keyboards to inform us—the impressionable, unsophisticated preponderance—that the advent of Christine O’Donnell torched the GOP’s tenuous aims at a Senate majority. A funny thing happened on the way to this presumption: In the ensuing days, a number of alarming polls put numerous other Democratic seats in increasing jeopardy. Given the extraordinary trend that will only intensify as voters see more of the unemployment figures and a hapless president, my feeling is that Republicans will capture both houses. Always ahead of the curve, I’ve already purchased my Election Night spirits to help me through the pain of seeing Sharron Angle’s, et al., arm raised in victory.

There’s also the Gray Revolution that erupted in Barack Obama’s neighborhood. Adrian Fenty, D.C.’s mayor—smart, energetic, cute, coddled by wine track liberals—will be eligible for unemployment benefits after the inauguration of the man who ousted him, Council Chairman Vincent Gray. (Mayor Fenty, however, is unlikely to become a 99er.) As will his school chancellor Michelle Rhee. It’s been said before, and it bears repeating here, that Mr. Fenty is remarkably similar to President Obama. These two capable black men rode to power on ridiculous postracial pretentions and governed with even more ridiculous technocratic ones. Some of us have long predicted this story of a president named Obama wouldn’t end well. Now we’ve been given a suitable precursor to point to. It helps the credibility.

We’ve also got Velma R. Hart who had the rare temerity to ask a modern president an actual question. This was huge because it was another reminder of how plastic our media environment otherwise is. I like how many progressives stopped kvetching about the White House’s media manipulation, image-making, and insulting faux-events once George W. Bush packed up all of his things and left the keys to the Executive Mansion to Barack Obama. Watching Obama, who is simply dreadful extemporaneously, made me yearn for Bill Clinton—though Bubba’s not any better than Barry on substance.

The brightest takes on the latter two events came from Bob Herbert in the pages of The New York Times and Courtland Milloy, writing for The Washington Post. Mr. Milloy, bursting with schadenfreude, hilariously danced on the grave of the outgoing Fenty administration. (I noticed the boys at Reason didn’t care for it as much as I.)

Folks, the money shot:

The Fenty troika eerily mirrored the old antebellum system of control, which featured a chairman for public works, which is what Fenty was, in essence; a chairman with expertise in legal maneuverings, Nickles; and a chairman for education and welfare issues, Rhee.

It all makes for a kind of friendly fascism in which D.C. government serves the interest of business leaders and landed gentry. Remarkably, his approach became much ballyhooed: Fenty, his supporters raved, was making the trains run on time. That people were falling off the caboose and being railroaded out of town was just the price of progress.

Mr. Herbert’s focus was broader; his approach more diplomatic:

Mr. Obama, who usually goes out of his way to avoid overtly racial comments and appeals, made an impassioned plea during a fiery speech Saturday night at a black-tie event sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. “I need everybody here,” he said, “to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back your workplaces, to go to the churches and go to the barbershops and go to the beauty shops. And tell them we’ve got more work to do.”

It’s no secret that the president is in trouble politically, and that Democrats in Congress are fighting desperately to hold on to their majorities. But much less attention has been given to the level of disenchantment among black voters, who have been hammered disproportionately by the recession and largely taken for granted by the Democratic Party. That disenchantment is likely to translate into lower turnout among blacks this fall.

The idea that we had moved into some kind of postracial era was always a ridiculous notion. Attitudes have undoubtedly changed for the better over the past half-century, and young people as a whole are less hung up on race than their elders. But race is still a very big deal in the United States, which is precisely why black leaders like Mr. Fenty and Mr. Obama try so hard to behave as though they are governing in some sort of pristine civic environment in which the very idea of race has been erased.

These allegedly postracial politicians can end up being so worried about losing the support of whites that they distance themselves from their own African-American base. This is a no-win situation — for the politicians and for the blacks who put their hopes and faith in them.

Christ, I love Bob Herbert. Give the man a cigar.

He’s absolutely right about the condescending notion of “postracial” politics. Postracialism has always struck me as one of those meta-political notions designed to capture the imagination of a bored political class while skirting the tired rabble’s stubborn and unsexy need for drastic change. The hard cynic in me resents the implied meaning of “postracialism”: Transcending a narrow conception of blackness that even white liberals are uneasy with.

Postracialism joined with an iron-clad intellectual discipline imposed on black people (black-on-black, to be sure) is what wrought the ascendance of Barack Obama.

America’s Scylla and Charybdis political system has been mostly unkind to its denizens of African descent (who built the damned country), and so it’s understandable why black people may be so far behind the curve in our collective assessment of the 44th president. We’re not at the breaking point just yet. (Indeed even Ms. Hart reaffirmed her overall support for the president in her obligatory cable news appearance Tuesday morning.) But like everything else, we can try to project forward. However strong our warm and fuzzy feelings for the first black president may be, economic facts will eventually assert themselves. Consider: the regular—not real—unemployment rate for black Americans is 16.3%.

There’s a popular refrain that goes, “If America has a cold, black America has pneumonia.” That speaks to me whenever I hear mainstream black critics of President Obama. It makes me think of someone like Tavis Smiley who has repeatedly lamented the absence of a “black” agenda. This is not a persuadable critique. To be certain, the president of the United States has to be seen representing all of his people. I’m a laid back kind of brotha: I would be more than satisfied with an American agenda in general rather than any specific black one. Instead we have a technocratic Democratic administration that operates for an ungrateful, capricious, and insatiable Wall Street class.  

I don’t care what color he is. He’s not my president. He probably won’t be anybody’s for much longer.

Tags: Barack Obama, Adrian Fenty, 2010 midterms, Mike Castle, Christine O'Donnell, Bob Herbert, Courtland Milloy, Michelle Rhee (all tags)

Comments

119 Comments

RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

I am so upset right now. Again, sorry, folks for whatever happened a few minutes ago.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:06PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

I think what happened is alot of readers were disgusted by your choice of the term "Chocolate Carter."  They expressed that disgust and you deleted the original post.  That's what I think happened.

by Vox Populi 2010-09-22 02:07PM | 1 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

If that's the case then why would I immediately post it within seconds? (I save every post on my hard drive.) Don't be silly. There aren't any preconditions here. People have a right to say whatever they said in the original entry. I'm proud of every. single. thing I've written here and I've been more willing to engage those who disagree. I relish it. Can't ya tell?

Like, seriously. LOL.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 02:21PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

btw how is "Chocolate Carter" any more offensive than, say, "Chocolate Jesus"? That wasn't Rush Limbaugh; that was the insanely awesome Bill Maher.

And before you even go: "'Barry From DC': President Obama Surprises Talk Radio Show With Call-In."

Any other shibboleths I can knock down for you? At your service, chap.

 

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 02:25PM | 0 recs
I cannot believe this place.

Did you really write this, Jack?  You seemed to be one of the decent front pagers here.

 

It seems MyDD has jumped the shark entirely. 

by lojasmo 2010-09-22 01:08PM | 2 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

I believe this is entirely consistent with everything else I've written here. No sarcasm: I am really sorry you feel that way. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:10PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Fair enough.  Perhaps I was mistaken.  Your last paragraph smacks of PUMA-ism at it's worst.  Bordering on racially insensitive, I am sad to see such drivel grace the front page of this once reasonable place.

I guess I still pine for the primaries of 2004, before Jerome went off the deep end, and dragged this place with him.

by lojasmo 2010-09-22 01:16PM | 1 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Perhaps it's unfair to expect you to understand what I meant by that. I can't even begin to tell you how intolerant black people have been about criticism of a man most of us didn't even support until he demonstrated his viability. That's when the black vote cynically shifted. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew incredible levels of support from blacks before that.

I've been made to feel that Barack Obama deserves special treatment because he's black and I'm black. I reject this and I'm not concerned with how it sounds to anyone. He doesn't represent me. Neither did the last guy--although that was to a far greater degree. I had a habit of saying George W. Bush wasn't my president because of his politics and what he represented. In a "postracial" America, I shouldn't catch any grief for likewise saying that Barack Obama isn't my president. I've been perfectly consistent in all of this. My fierce critics are the ones that left their intellectual honesty, humor, appreciation for diverse opinion, and balls, at the security desk on their way into the White House with this current fellow.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:24PM | 0 recs
Are you the cynic?

Did the black vote cynically shift, or was there a cultural, and historical shift in what was possible? Why in the hell would you waste your time supporting a non-viable candidate? I loved Kucinic. Was I cynical when I switched my supoort to Obama?  Did you think a black guy could win the presidency in 2008? Hell no.

I am frustrated as hell with the capulation to the monied aristocracy, but please. The most disrespectful thing you said was that millions of people switched their vote out of cynicism and not conviction. You are seriously as bad as Rush Limabaugh in that respect. People just voted for Obama because he was black? Just like Alan Keyes won the black vote in his landslide runs for president.

 

Hillary and Barack both had appealing qualities. Hillary's electibility put her over the top at the start. Once people started to see the electibility of Barack they switched. You are an arrogant man to think they all switched out of something less than principle.

by alectimmerman 2010-09-22 10:08PM | 0 recs
RE: Are you the cynic?

"Cynical" may have been a bit much. I apologize for that poor choice of words. The word carries strong connotations. But it was certainly intellectually honest and on that basis alone, I was deeply offended by the sudden lack of tolerance for criticism of Obama. I remember it all very well. Not only was it immediate; folk were acting they were perfectly consistent!

You know who had an interesting take on the black vote shift to Obama? A prominent professor and author Michael Eric Dyson at the State of the Black Union in February 2008. I watched it live. He was defending a tough Obama critic Tavis Smiley (who I spoke about briefly) from strident Obama supporters by reminding them of their fickle allegiances. @ 4:35.

Speaking of the State of the Black Union--you guys are gonna love this--here's brother Dick Gregory defending Ray Nagin's use of the word "chocolate" to describe black people. @ 3:30.

Quite frankly, you all need to back the hell up. You're treading on extremely unfamiliar territory. LOL.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 10:28PM | 0 recs
RE: Are you the cynic?

"But it was certainly intellectually dishonest and on that basis alone..."

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 10:34PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

I pine for the days before Obama dragged the Democratic Party into bailing out the banks with billions, carrying water for the corporate healthcare reform, and backing a trillion dollar failure with his surge to over 100,000 troops into Afghanistan.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 01:25PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

You can't pine for days that didn't exist.

We've had the most progressive government and legislation since the 60's. And if you want to get back to those "good o'll days" maybe you should work towards electing legislative majorities like were enjoyed in the mid 30's and 60's. 

by vecky 2010-09-22 01:32PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

I agree.  At stake here, in this discussion is the implicit role of the President.

 

Under Bush, the corrupt legislature ran under lock stop - of a unitary executive. The Bush Republicans were the most corrupt administration ever.

And they got things done, by installing ever more control of our American political process into the hands of lobbyists.  Bush ran a dictatorship.

 

Under Obama, the concept of the President as a diplomat, and administrator - returned. After Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize - he gave directed speeches, and established an agenda for healthcare reform.

 

But then healthcare reform, written in committees overseen by corrupt Democrats (who were on the take since Bush) such as Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, etc. - wrote a bill out of the Senate that was fundamentally flawed.

 

And now we have the albatross. Throwing out those people, are a good idea. And party affiliation matters not. What matters more - is where the lobbyist money was spent and how to commutate it.

 

This election, IMHO will have alot of surprises in store.  But perhaps the idea that a corrupt house of congress, needs a corrupt and all powerful president to whip it around. Is false.

 

Obama's vision for healthcare reform was pretty clear.

And he was the first president in 40 years to get anything done.

 

The money is flooding into the hands of people who profit by us talking about other topics and parrot narrative.

 

Except the blogosphere. :)

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-22 02:42PM | 0 recs
Me too

Obama has destroyed the Democratic party beyond repair.  We were at the top of the world before he was elected, now we are right back in the minority because of him.  He's horrible and a failure. 

by Kent 2010-09-22 02:46PM | 1 recs
RE: Me too

I often think that Democrats would have been better off if Obama had lost. He makes McCain look better all the time.

Consider that if we still had a heavily controlled Dem congress, the GOP would be screwed. Now it appears that they will get at least the House. They will definitely get Ken Starr to come back to town and shower that asshole with money galore--he will make Obammie and the Dems miserable for the next 6 years at least just like with Clinton. Only difference is that Bill Clinton did not fear Ken Starr, Obama will run and hit like a runaway slave...

by hddun2008 2010-09-26 11:34PM | 0 recs
RE: Me too

Not runaway slave!

You're going to bring the Justice Department down on us. "Chocolate Carter" was enough.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-27 04:38AM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Well since this is mainly become a place for Jerome and his buddies to pat each other on the back and hope for democratic defeats I think it is time I stopped reading this site after all these years and let the advertising money dry up even more than it obviously already has.

 

by kasjogren 2010-09-22 01:29PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Its more like facing the fact that the progressive defeat has already happened, and once we get to that point, figuring out what to do next.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 01:30PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Ditching the whiners and nay-sayers would be a good place to start methinks.

by vecky 2010-09-22 01:36PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

What about the clueless apparatchiks that have been proven wrong every step of the way? You're more like Bill Kristol than you think, love.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:41PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

You mean like yourself? Your the one who said Obama would never win if I recall.

by vecky 2010-09-22 01:48PM | 2 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

That's about the only thing I was wrong about. That was swept away immediately after he won the nomination and the Republicans nominated the vindictive asshole from Arizona. My opposition to and general pessimism about the president thereafter has been prescient. That's why I've been called a bitter PUMA and a hater in the Obama era. I never drank the Kool-Aid and I am proud of my record.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:58PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Record of what? You seem to be doubly upset that Obama is not some uber-progressive rabble-rousing populist, but those of us who recall his 2004 debut know he is pretty much the same guy we voted for in Nov. 

by vecky 2010-09-22 02:02PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

I don't recall Barack Obama campaigning on presiding over hideous unemployment; the individual mandate (He used to frequently make an eloquent, devastating case against it); an obviously failed war in Afghanistan (Candidate Obama may have promised something like a Afghan surge but his superior "judgment" would not have permitted him to preside over an obviously failed war in which American G.I.s are senselessly dying); I'm sure many voters in the Rust Belt took him seriously when he made significant gestures against NAFTA before chucking his entire position aside as "heated rhetoric" once safely nominated; I could go on all day long.

btw, I already recognize that, absent Obama, the Clinton restoration of 2012 is precisely the same thing as the Obama movement of 2008. That is to say, a vehicle through which the establishment maintains control. Unless the Clintons show me something in the way of contrition (because honestly, is Obama anything but Bill Clinton on steroids in a worse economy?), I will oppose them as fiercely as I have Obama.

And like I said many times before, I like all of them on a "personal level"--for want of a better term--but this isn't about that. I perfectly understand that Hillary's presidency would have played out basically the same as Obama's.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 02:13PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Both  Jerome, and Jack were opposed to Obama in the 2008 primaries. Jerome wanted establishment DLC to prevail. He was a big fan of Hillary.

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-22 02:34PM | 1 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Quit lying. I supported Clinton because she was partisan, and the only alternative after Edwards dropped out, and said that Obama voted like a DLC hack all along.

The only difference between Clinton and Obama was that at least she is a partisan.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 02:56PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

hehe, I liked Edwards too. Looks like we both have lousy judgement Jerome.

by alectimmerman 2010-09-22 10:12PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Yea, not something that is memorable, that's for sure. He really threw it all away. He would be sitting pretty right now if not for all that.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 11:45PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

For a minute I thought that I had clicked on No Quarter by mistake!

by waldo 2010-09-23 05:15AM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Pretty big thing to have been wrong about, particularly given what even a cursory read of polling revealed.

by fladem 2010-09-23 12:13AM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

What we do next is work to defeat Obama in 2012.  We must kill off this cancer on the Democratic party. 

by Kent 2010-09-22 02:49PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

This is why I stopped reading blogs.  These people be crazy.

by the mollusk 2010-09-22 03:16PM | 2 recs
Join the Tea Party, they're right next door.

I do my best to stay out of conversations like this (insert image of person trying to interrupt heated argument between second person and fire hydrant). I certainly don't intend to actually achieve anything, so I suppose that at best this is an act of indulgent self abuse.

Still, the thrill of a pointless conflict...

So, the political spectrum is circular (well, I actually picture a torus, but that's another digression we'll skip for now).  Earth First! and the Tea Party are closer to each other than either is to someone like me standing near the middle. MyDD's own Texas Darlin' ending up with a blog (long since sealed off from Prying Eyes) where survivalists talk about how to make lethal weapons during the coming Dark Times and the best way to kill an Outsider is no surprise at all. For some of the Far Left who were disappointed when Sec. Clinton lost her campaign it was a shorter walk to Palin than it was to Obama because they were never really that far away to begin with.

I do not expect any of the usual voices to agree with a word of what I just said. Probably not even to believe it, though those are two different things. But actions, so I am told, speak louder than words.

In my daily world creating Rules that detect classes of Behaviors buried in oceans of data is old hat: many things are alike no matter that they emerge from entirely different sources. It does not seem at all untenable to imagine writing a single set of rules at the human scale which would parse out a single demographic including both the Tea Party and the Anti-Democratic-ProgressoPUMAs (or whatever you folks are calling yourselves these days).

Maybe there is a "Tea PUMA Party" ("PUMA Party"? "Tea Pumy"? "Progressive Conservatives"? [no, wait, that was Canada]) or something that could be ginned up? I'm sure Sarah would be happy to welcome a gaggle of disaffected Liberals.

They live one door down. Stop by for a cup.

by chrisblask 2010-09-22 09:40PM | 2 recs
RE: Join the Tea Party, they're right next door.

Texasdarlin really went off the deep end.  I must confess i didn't know she had gone that far off the deep end, though.

And she hit the reclist here when there were readers. 

by fladem 2010-09-23 12:32AM | 1 recs
The last discussion I saw before TD's playground went password-only

was exactly that.  How to make your own bullets, boobytraps you can put around your bunker...

Yesterday there was a debate on NPR between a guy who thought genetically engineered salmon was bad and one who thought it was OK. The first guy sounded 19-21 years old and lunged at every point, talking over Diane Reems to the point that she was visibly angry with him (point of note for anyone going on Diane's show: you don't gain sympathy with your audience when you piss off Diane). The first thing I thought of when I heard his hectoring voice was members of the 9/12 group that I have been following: emotionally unstable and you wouldn't leave him around your kids.

When you have to decide something really important (like more/healthier/cheaper food vs. risks of environmental catastrophe) the last thing you want is someone randomly emoting all over the place. Such is the makeup of extreme groups.  Ill-thought and poorly reflected opinions tightly held as Sole Truths which all who oppose are "too Stupid and Evil to understand like I do".

Anyone who holds unassailable and aggressive views of highly complex situations is a danger to have around. The views they hold are a secondary result of the fact that they are emotionally unstable people to begin with: they're just as likely to smash windows in an Anti Globalization protest as they are to stockpile weapons to hold off the Commies.  Which way they go is entirely situational and has nothing to do with whether either approach is sane.

by chrisblask 2010-09-23 10:31AM | 1 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

I tried posting a comment that my previous comment was a reply to Kent, but maybe this one will work...

by chrisblask 2010-09-22 11:28PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Democratic defeats? Have progressives forgotten how to affect change? Primaries, much? As far as I know no one's recommended leaving the Democratic Party. We're upset with this current iteration. I, for one, will do whatever I personally can to support a primary challenge to this president.

We're about as upset as progressives should have been when Bill Clinton signed welfare "reform" or the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Well, maybe I should tread lightly there. Clinton didn't have intolerant apparatchiks demanding obedience in the midst of 16.7% real unemployment. And his Catfood Commission never really took off.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:35PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

We're about as upset as progressives should have been when Bill Clinton signed welfare "reform" or the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

And yes, being that upset led us to ditch Gore and got the country Bush. Worked out very well. Hell, maybe we would have preferred Dole to win in '96, that way I could have kept my SS money too!

by vecky 2010-09-22 01:44PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

Believe me; I use to hold Nader voters in as much contempt as you do. I don't anymore. I understand now that many of those people have been doing this whole politics thing a heck of a lot longer than I have. People can get tired, burned out, shocked, and hurt after being beaten down and sold out by the establishment (of either party) after such a long spell. I'm a lot less judgmental. I state my case. I forcefully argue. I don't insult people's sincerity in their inability to pull the lever for someone like Al Gore or John Kerry ("Knowing what I know now..."). At what point are you going to blame the politicians instead of the people who often do precisely what's asked of them by the party apparatus, short of pulling a gun on more people and forcing them to care enough to go to the polls to vote Democratic?

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:52PM | 0 recs
RE: I cannot believe this place.

My own experience is that vast vast majoity don't take politics personally. The kinda follow the campaign, listen to their friends, and vote, or not. The tiny percentage who feel vested in it enough to "get tired, burned out, shocked, and hurt" are way way to small a % to swing national races.

What we can do as progressives is put an end to mis-information and explain concise positions in an intelligent and pragmatic manner. And of course make sure that the narrative is one that benefits us rather than hurts. You mentioned primaries, well primary season is now over. Now is the time to take a deep breath, count them chickens and make the best with what you've got.

by vecky 2010-09-23 01:20AM | 1 recs
I have a title for the upcoming Obama mini-drama:

Barack Obama:  When pretty f**king good just isn't good enough.

 

by the mollusk 2010-09-22 01:24PM | 1 recs
RE: I have a title for the upcoming Obama mini-drama:

Better be mini, no one can afford a full-length sequel.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 01:28PM | 0 recs
RE: I have a title for the upcoming Obama mini-drama:

"Barack Obama: Why aren't people profusely praising me for 16.7% real unemployment?"

FIFY.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:28PM | 0 recs
RE: I have a title for the upcoming Obama mini-drama:

For the mollusk.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:35PM | 0 recs
RE: I have a title for the upcoming Obama mini-drama:

Oh good, actual policy! If you have an idea to further combat unemployment and can deliver 218 votes in the house and 60 in the senate, please put it forward.

hahahaha!

by vecky 2010-09-22 01:35PM | 0 recs
RE: I have a title for the upcoming Obama mini-drama:

I'm of the opinion (after a long, hard pull on my hope bong) that it takes more than 18 months to undue a 30-year credit bubble which floated consumer spending even though real wages have been flat or declining.  If these economy is going to be remade (and it is), I'd rather have Obama calling the shots - even with Geithner whispering in his ear - than Boehner, McConnell, Palin (God help us), Romney-bot, Bush, or practically anyone else you can come up with.

Tough to outdo this figure (from CalculatedRiskBlog):

by the mollusk 2010-09-22 02:14PM | 0 recs
RE: I have a title for the upcoming Obama mini-drama:

sorry, no picture - here's the link:

http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/09/housing-starts-and-unemployment-rate.html

by the mollusk 2010-09-22 02:15PM | 0 recs
post-racial idiocy

Looks like Obama Derangement Syndrome is is full bloom here at MYDD. Can't say I'm surprised. I do think it's actually more like Stockholm Syndrome though. The Obama haters somehow identify with the fringe right in their hatred of Obama. How's that for some post-racial idiocy?

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 01:36PM | 2 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

We identify with the fringe right about as much as otherwise good people descended into Clinton Derangement Syndrome (girded with rabid attacks previously familiar to the "fringe right") in 2008. This is politics. No one's hands are clean, so stop it.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:43PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

"The '3 A.M.' ad was racist!"

Do you really want to go there? I don't.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:44PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

Jack, I just watched the 3AM ad again. I dont' see it as racist. As you think it is, tell me how?

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 01:49PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

Of course I don't think it's racist! That was an example of the incredible depths many Obama supporters descended.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 01:54PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

Well, you've just lumped me into a group without any evidence that I belong to it. Seems like you're setting up a straw man to knock down. That is a poor debaters tactic.

Back to the discussion at hand. I see you attacking Obama in an ingenuous way - just like the fringe right.

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 02:00PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

And I'm not even close to believing that I've attacked president in a disingenuous way. You're reducing my position to a caricature. This, too, is a poor debater’s tactic.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 02:02PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

I'll just hold you to this statement:

"Given the extraordinary trend that will only intensify as voters see more of the unemployment figures and a hapless president, my feeling is that Republicans will capture both houses."

Let's talk again on November 3rd. For the record I believe the Democrats will keep control of both houses.

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 02:11PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

I'll see you at the party, bro.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 02:16PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

That would be the worst case scenario in my mind (thinking of 2012), and entirely possible too. 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 02:58PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

You're kidding right?

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 03:42PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

No. Having a majority of 5 or less seats in the House, and a majority because of Joe Lieberman in the Senate, ow worse than just losing when it comes to how it lays out the landscape for 2012.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 04:07PM | 0 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

Who cares about 2012?  Having Obama in the White House for another four years will be the final stake into the heart of the Democratic party. 

by Kent 2010-09-22 04:30PM | 1 recs
RE: post-racial idiocy

Written like a true sychophant. If it makes you feel better to hold us to a higher standard than you do Obama, then so be it. I don't hate Barry - would just like to see him go away. Sooner rather than later. He can't be salvaged.

- HCR - a giant bust. Threw us under the bus. Only seats at the table - big pharma & insurance (I own a part A institutional health care billing software company so please don't lecture me on what I do & don't know about the insurance industry)

- Financial Reform - too big to fail - now bigger

- BP Oil Blow-out - an organized effort to shield BP & Barry from liability. If you can't see that then you aren't looking. (I'm in Louisiana so please, once again, don't lecture me on what I do & don't know.)

In short, on three of the biggest issues - fail, fail, fail. you go ahead and vote for him, I've moved on.

by Tboy 2010-09-22 03:52PM | 0 recs
The Obama Fail Narrative

This is a common narrative, that somehow a man who wins a nobel peace prize, reforms healthcare, halts a massive economic crash, and reverses course of a huge, systematic global economic meltdown ......  that somehow, this is the same guy who's epic fail.

 

No.

 

Just. No.

And yeah, ok. So we're in Afghanistan. So what. We're done with Iraq, it's a messy situation over there. We didn't start it.

 

My vote here is that the guy's alright, and the US Senate effed up the healthcare reform package.  And the vibe that is happening will NOT cut toward the popular party ideal but rather take this election to a new place where people do their homework and avoid...

yellow journalism.

 

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-22 02:32PM | 1 recs
RE: The Obama Fail Narrative

I hope you're right. I would settle for some reality based analysis these days.

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 02:43PM | 0 recs
I'm done

Referring to the President as a "Chocolate Carter" is a not just an affront to decency but also historically inaccurate. The troubles that beset this Administration are far different than those that confronted the Carter Administration. To advance the meme that Obama is another Carter is play into the right-wing's hands.

Jerome has decided to allow a 19 year old college student in Savannah, Georgia who writes polemical drug-infused rants under a pseudonym to front page on MyDD.

That's his decision. Mine is not to write any further on a blog in clear disarray.

by Charles Lemos 2010-09-22 02:42PM | 7 recs
RE: I'm done

The one who got away!

I'm 21.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 02:57PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm done

Is that chronologically or mentally? I doubt that it is the latter!

by waldo 2010-09-23 05:25AM | 0 recs
RE: I'm done

Don't be done. The problem is that we have one group of people who are committed navel gazers, on any given day they will be complaining about nutty tea-baggers, while they clearly gloss over the cause of their ascendency. Whereas on the other hand you have another group, exemplified by this diarist, who are like drive-by shooters. Plenty of flowery language, but misses the mark by a very wide margin. Here we are stuck in the middle, defenders of an administration unwilling to defend itself and asking its supporters to be enthusiastic of half-measures and pablums. Frankly, I am getting really tired of writing "I told you so" diaries about the half-hearted legislations that this administration is considering significant victories. Watching this administration in action in Congress is like watching Charlie Brown kick the ball, over and over again. I just don't find the enthusiasm to join in their silly sport unless they start getting serious.

by tarheel74 2010-09-22 02:58PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm done

Obviously, things are in bigger disarray with the Democratic Party than this blog. I don't really get the affront to opinions. So what if he's anonymous?  Am looking forward to more of his rants, in fact, your best writing here has been the posts where you show some emotion.

That needs to come out on a much bigger display within the progressive circle if we are going to see anything change, and not just repeat the whole debacle of the latter part of the '90's when the progressives just checked out, which you shouldn't be doing.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-22 03:07PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm done

I gave up on mydd a long time ago. The only reason I'm here now is to see if the comments I read on other sites were exaggerated. Sadly, they weren't. This is a low point for mydd.

I've read your diaries on other sites, like the motley moose, and know that you had quite a few fans. Some of the people that gave up on mydd at the same time I did would still come here occassionally to read your posts. I doubt any of them will be back once you are gone. I know I'm done giving this site any more credibility by visiting it.

Good luck, Charles

by MS01 Indie 2010-09-22 04:13PM | 3 recs
Historically, the comparison is quite accurate

No comparison is perfect. One way the two men (Carter and Obama) are dissimilar is that Carter put his fingerprints on, and micro-managed everything, e.g., his ill-fated energy policy. Obama on the other hand---and I think this is where many of us lost respect for him---attempted to outsource all of his major initiatives, so that he couldn't be held accountable for the outcomes. No fingerprints, no accountability; it got really sickening to hear David Axelrod make the rounds on the Sunday AM talk shows, reminding the anchors that, "there is no Obama bill, at this point". Whatever stimulus/HCR bill emerged from the Congress, Obama was going to be there smiling to claim credit for it, and his place in history. Only problem was, the actual bills---stimulus, HCR, finreg---that emerged were bad policy: poorly crafted and poorly executed.

Which gets to the real similarity between Jimmy and "Chocolate" Carter: while pleasant and genial men, neither was a leader. Both were weak, and had only vague notions of where they wanted to take the country. Carter used to ruminate about wanting a government "filled with love", Barack talked about weighty things like "hope and change". And by thus trying to BS their way through everything, each ended up with no constituency, either on the right or the left.

Goodbye, Barack. Sink back into the Chicago machine that spawned you.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-09-22 04:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Historically, the comparison is quite accurate

Carter was not a big success or a big failure. He is about in the upper middle of presidents. He was like Clinton in that he allowed the right wing supporters of Reagan to convince him that the recession of 1978-79 was much worse than in reality. Jez, his biggest deficit was about $9 billion. So Jimmy appointed the worst person possible to be his Fed chairman---the ultraright wing monetarist Paul Voelker.  Voelker secretly was tasked by his Cato friends into getting Carter out of office. Mr. Carter is very naive and he still to this day doesn't see that -- he even went on TV and blamed the American public at large.  He must be the worst economically challenged President we ever had. What started out as a typical 18 month trough to peek recession was pushed way into 1980 by Voelker's tight money and restrictive monetary  policy of high interest rates.  Carter lost because he did not appoint a loose money Democrat to the Fed Chairman but he never would admit that's what defeated him--unemployed people voted for the Reagan in large numbers. Immediately after his election in late 1981, Reagan dumped Voelker and got a liberal loose money Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan (Voelker said he was resigning but he was dumped--Reagan's people could not have the recession going on in the election campaign for 1984--Voelkers tight money policy's had to go).  So, Jimmy Carter is a real dumba*s on economics and in a way he is a very naive politician since he allowed the opposing GOP party to define him like they did on Iran and on the recession.

Now we have Obama. He isn't exactly a Carter and he isn't Clinton.  He's naive like Carter and he falls for the GOP bullsh*t like Clinton did on the "Welfare Reforms" of Newt Gingrich (which were pretty much eliminated under GW Bush).

Now Obama is really caught up in the pomp and stuff of being president. He is naive like Carter and as a new president thought that the GOP would play fair / nice with him--they haven't and his poll numbers continue to drop as he plays nice with them. People (me included think he has no agenda and no backbone).

I think he is going to be a one-termer at this rate. He deserves what he is going to get when the new GOP Congress convenes. If the GOP leaders went after Clinton over very thin evidence, then Obama is in for a big headache lasting for the next 2 years.  Why does he deserve it? Because, he has failed the Democrat party and base constantly over the last 2 years.  He should have taken the election of Scott Brown as a BIG WAKE UP CALL......he likes to campaign but only for himself. Without the cover of the Democratic House majority he inherited but which he did NOT engineer (it was Howard Dean's 50 state plan), he will see the Boehner lead gang come after him like a bulldozer. The Democrats already in Congress since 2006 covered his back but in turn, he did not do a thing to help them....HE JUST PLANNED NICE WITH THE OPPOSITION GOP for the last 18 months.

by hddun2008 2010-09-22 09:19PM | 1 recs
RE: Historically, the comparison is quite accurate

If Democrats lose the House, it will be 100% Obama's fault.  The party was in terrific shape before Obama came in and messed it all up.  I hope Obama drowns in 2012. 

by Kent 2010-09-22 09:47PM | 0 recs
But this is

the most comments an post has here in months.

This blog has been in dissarray for a year.  I come back to see if DesMoinesDem has written anything.

There was a time when it was the best place to discuss polling and such.

 

 

 

 

 

by fladem 2010-09-22 05:03PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm done

Yeah, think it's about time to delete this bookmark.  I am not Mortally Offended but there's simply nothing interesting here any more.  Anyone can rant.

Hope to see you posting someplace else Charles.

by Steve M 2010-09-22 10:49PM | 4 recs
RE: I'm done

Ranting takes at least a good thirty minutes.

Firing off some pointless, self-righteous thing like the above can literally be done by anyone within seconds.

What ever happened to going quietly in the night?

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 10:54PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm done

Bless you and I hope you'll reconsider someday.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 10:56PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm done

That is truly a shame Charles as I appreciated your posts. But I certainly do not blame your for leaving.

by waldo 2010-09-23 05:22AM | 0 recs
about annonymity

I'm glad blogging annonymity is beginning to go away. The trouble with not using your name is that it basically frees the writer from taking any actually responsibility for their posts.

Why dosn't our 21 year old blogger step up to the plate and take personal responsibility for his opinions?

To get the ball rolling, my name is Robert Krazalcovics and I live an CA.

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 03:33PM | 0 recs
RE: about annonymity

This is patently stupid. How can we be sure? Birth certificate perhaps?

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 03:47PM | 0 recs
RE: about annonymity

Just a little joke!

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 03:47PM | 0 recs
RE: about annonymity

We'll take your word for it. After-all you keep pointing out your race, so it's not like you think we won't believe you.

by vecky 2010-09-23 01:26AM | 0 recs
RE: about annonymity

I feel like I have to point out my race. Folks were about to riot in the first diary because they thought I was white. The Klan talk ceased after I made my race clear. I don't like it any more than you do.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-23 04:47AM | 0 recs
RE: about annonymity

Sounds more like you enjoy using your race as a shield. But that's not really the point, you said "you made it clear", but other than simply stating it you havn't done anything. If you were responding to yourself i'm sure you would say:

This is patently stupid. How can we be sure? Birth certificate perhaps?

by vecky 2010-09-23 01:50PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

You folks are getting a little fascistic on me. Am I going to be hauled away to re-education camp? If so, please tell me when and for how long so that I'll know how much food to leave out for Mötley.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 03:50PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

People object to your poorly thoughtout rant so they are facists. How sweet. You don't need to be re-educated, you just need to grow up.

by MS01 Indie 2010-09-22 04:27PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

No, no, no. What's eerie and fascistic are the calls for my identity.

Don't be obtuse.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 04:29PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

I just figured out who you are...Jonah Goldberg. I knew your "prose" sounded familiar.

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 04:38PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

He might not be Jonah Goldberg, but he is definitely just as vapid. Frankly, even if he is I really don't care.

by tarheel74 2010-09-22 04:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

Evidence? "fascisitic call for my idendity". In other words stop calling me names you "Liberal Fasists", haven't you read my book yet?

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 04:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

Yes, demanding the identity of anonymous bloggers for the sake of "accountability" is creepily fascistic. It's like the paranoid, intrusive culture of the Bush era never happened. How soon we forget.

Alas, we can't all be as brave as you, "Robert Krazalcovics in CA." Somebody, maybe. But not today.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 06:10PM | 0 recs
Well, I tried

Jerome, maybe you just like stirring the pot. I think you are making a real mistake front paging posters like "Jack Landsman".

I'm with Charles on this. There are way too many good blogs around to waste time arguing with someone who thinks using "chocolate Carter" in the title is a good idea.

by SF Bay 2010-09-22 03:55PM | 1 recs
this diary fails to make any real points

 

The title of this diary seems to indicate that it would make two points. One, that Obama is like Carter. The other, that Obama is getting his just deserts.  Besides the fact that this diary is wrong about just about everything it does say, neither of these points are backed up by any real arguments. As Charles pointed out, Obama is certainly not like Carter, and such a comparison only advances a right-wing meme. But even if the comparison is accurate, there's absolutely no case made for that in the diary. There's also no argument in the diary for why the tea party victories or bad poll numbers are a result of Obama's 'failure' as president. It's unclear even what point the diarist is trying to make about Christine O'Donnell. Were the Democrats supposed to get involved in this primary and somehow failed? Are we supposed to somehow wish Mike Castle had won, even though he would surely win this seat for the GOP and O'Donnell is far behind Coons?  And Fenty lost because he was like Obama? What? Saying this doesn't make it true.  Again, I'm completely lost on what this post is trying to say, but as far as I can gather, you've ranted about how bad a job Obama is doing at improving the economy without making any case whatsoever for what he should have done, or why his policies haven't work. Then you make some argument about how you are offended by the nature of postracialism, the same tired argument from the primary that never made much sense. Postracialism apparently means we want black people to stop acting black, or something like that. In reality, postracialism is merely a move beyond identity politics. Perhaps black people shouldn't have voted en masse for Obama just because he was black, but that's hardly Obama's fault. Was he supposed to administer some type of test to black people before they voted for him to make sure they had reasons other than his skin color?  Of course, none of that is relevant. What is relevant is that Obama is just the President of the United States. While some people still always think first about him in terms of his race, most others just see him as the president. Which is a good thing. He's not just a token first black president. He's just the president.

The title of this diary seems to indicate that it would make two points. One, that Obama is like Carter. The other, that Obama is getting his just deserts. 

Besides the fact that this diary is wrong about just about everything it does say, neither of these points are backed up by any real arguments. As Charles pointed out, Obama is certainly not like Carter, and such a comparison only advances a right-wing meme. But even if the comparison is accurate, there's absolutely no case made for that in the diary.

There's also no argument in the diary for why the tea party victories or bad poll numbers are a result of Obama's 'failure' as president. It's unclear even what point the diarist is trying to make about Christine O'Donnell. Were the Democrats supposed to get involved in this primary and somehow failed? Are we supposed to somehow wish Mike Castle had won, even though he would surely win this seat for the GOP and O'Donnell is far behind Coons? 

And Fenty lost because he was like Obama? What? Saying this doesn't make it true. 

Again, I'm completely lost on what this post is trying to say, but as far as I can gather, you've ranted about how bad a job Obama is doing at improving the economy without making any case whatsoever for what he should have done, or why his policies haven't work.

Then you make some argument about how you are offended by the nature of postracialism, the same tired argument from the primary that never made much sense. Postracialism apparently means we want black people to stop acting black, or something like that.

In reality, postracialism is merely a move beyond identity politics. Perhaps black people shouldn't have voted en masse for Obama just because he was black, but that's hardly Obama's fault. Was he supposed to administer some type of test to black people before they voted for him to make sure they had reasons other than his skin color? 

Of course, none of that is relevant. What is relevant is that Obama is just the President of the United States. While some people still always think first about him in terms of his race, most others just see him as the president. Which is a good thing. He's not just a token first black president. He's just the president.

 

by BlueGAinDC 2010-09-22 04:01PM | 3 recs
RE: this diary fails to make any real points

The title of this diary seems to indicate that it would make two points. One, that Obama is like Carter. The other, that Obama is getting his just deserts. 

Besides the fact that this diary is wrong about just about everything it does say, neither of these points are backed up by any real arguments. As Charles pointed out, Obama is certainly not like Carter, and such a comparison only advances a right-wing meme. But even if the comparison is accurate, there's absolutely no case made for that in the diary.

I have always drawn the parallel between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter. From Day One, as Hillary might put it. Their public personas are strikingly similar. They both possess a strange professorial aloofness. A fickle press—with Obama in particular—applauded this detached coolness before predictably riding them for their inability to “connect” with voters in the smarmy, charismatic fashion of a Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Carter was a response to the Nixon era; Obama to the Bush catastrophe. Despite the enormous hope and goodwill that preceded their elevation, it looks like they both will preside over breathtakingly failed one-term presidencies, during which the American people’s trust in government further eroded. Under their watch rose a reinvigorated conservative movement that uprooted every tin-eared presumption of the charmed, smart, “very serious” political establishment in our nation’s capital. To get a grip on what we were in store for, I read James Fallows’ “Passionless Presidency” as far back as December 2008. The parallel is so remarkable, it’s becoming conventional wisdom. Like most of what us contrarian left-wing teabaggers, PUMAs, racists, drive-by shooters (nice one, whoever that was), or whatever clever name respectable defenders of the president can produce.

There's also no argument in the diary for why the tea party victories or bad poll numbers are a result of Obama's 'failure' as president. It's unclear even what point the diarist is trying to make about Christine O'Donnell. Were the Democrats supposed to get involved in this primary and somehow failed? Are we supposed to somehow wish Mike Castle had won, even though he would surely win this seat for the GOP and O'Donnell is far behind Coons? 

And Fenty lost because he was like Obama? What? Saying this doesn't make it true. 

Again, I'm completely lost on what this post is trying to say, but as far as I can gather, you've ranted about how bad a job Obama is doing at improving the economy without making any case whatsoever for what he should have done, or why his policies haven't work.

This is a pompous sort of obtuseness. I can’t be responsible for your inability to make simple inferences in some places, and you projecting the worst possible interpretations in others. The first line of this Front Page entry was the acknowledgement of three events that, added up, could have profound implications for the Obama presidency. My point with the O’Donnell bit was to shake liberals out of their complacent tendency to underestimate the teabaggers. I can’t be responsible to every fantastic possible interpretation that pops into your head.

Fenty: It’s the same thing. Fenty didn’t lose simply because he was like Obama. I simply made the point that the two men are very much alike in style. Their political personas—the postracialism, the technocratic stewardship of DC and America, respectively—means that the fall of Fenty is a cautionary tale for Obama. I didn’t have to delineate every fault of Adrian Fenty—I cited two men who brilliantly informed their readers, yours truly included, of the story behind the recent happenings. Mr. Milloy in particular came in for quite a drubbing, but I think the man is absolutely right in the substance of what he said and the irreverent style he adopted to say it.

Then you make some argument about how you are offended by the nature of postracialism, the same tired argument from the primary that never made much sense. Postracialism apparently means we want black people to stop acting black, or something like that.

In reality, postracialism is merely a move beyond identity politics. Perhaps black people shouldn't have voted en masse for Obama just because he was black, but that's hardly Obama's fault. Was he supposed to administer some type of test to black people before they voted for him to make sure they had reasons other than his skin color? 

Of course, none of that is relevant. What is relevant is that Obama is just the President of the United States. While some people still always think first about him in terms of his race, most others just see him as the president. Which is a good thing. He's not just a token first black president. He's just the president.

You may have good reason to think this, but I can assure you your neat definition of “postracialism” is hardly the end of the story. It’s not simply about the transcendence of identity politics. The nomenclature is very misleading: Postracialism is the triumph over a certain kind of identity politics. You are welcome to disagree—or even dismiss it entirely as “tired”—but for many black Americans whose ears are finely attuned to this sort of thing, postracialism is an encomium bestowed on a certain type of black politician of a certain of political persuasion. “Clean” wine track liberals, if you will. They have transcended a certain kind of blackness. This is why Chris Matthews, to name a prominent example, can barely contain his condescending fascination with Barack Obama’s race. Obama’s articulate, preppy, and shocking. I’m here to tell you it’s not at all shocking to many blacks. This is simply white liberal paternalism, elitism, classism.

This is not to say I have eternal patience with somebody Al Sharpton. I detest Rev. Sharpton. He’s a charlatan and a race hustler. But I don’t like being spoken down to. I don’t like, as one commenter did, basically being told that my choice is between aloof postracial politicians and Marion Barry. That is unbelievable.

And I’m still waiting to hear about a postracial Republican or conservative black.

As far as holding President Obama accountable for blacks’ cynical and lopsided support for him, once again you’re attempting to fasten a ridiculous interpretation to my argument. I fault black people for the intra-community intolerance re: Obama. That’s why I was careful to note that the “iron-clad intellectual discipline” that is prevalent in the black community is in fact “black-on-black.”

Before we conclude our bit of business here, I'd like to commend you for understanding the innocent thought behind the title, "Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter." Since I'm not a pious, humorless prick, I thought it was fun. "Just desserts" (which, of course, is not the correct phrase) meshed well with a hilarious and satirical synonym for "black": Chocolate. (See Bill Maher's "Chocolate Jesus" for further context.) And I've already explained the Carter allegory, which I thought would be a fairly obvious one.

Thank you for coming.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 05:18PM | 0 recs
RE: this diary fails to make any real points

Well, your response at least has a lot more substance than your actual diary. 

Having said that, your argument is still fairly thin.

Despite the enormous hope and goodwill that preceded their elevation, it looks like they both will preside over breathtakingly failed one-term presidencies, during which the American people’s trust in government further eroded. Under their watch rose a reinvigorated conservative movement that uprooted every tin-eared presumption of the charmed, smart, “very serious” political establishment in our nation’s capital.

This seems to be the crux of your Obama/Carter comparison (as the rest of it mostly surrounds a media narrative about Obama's personality). Not only is there no evidence that Obama will not win a second term, but the idea that his presidency is "failed" is obviously laughable. I understand the sentiment that Obama isn't living up to expectations, that his accomplishments were not significant progressive achievements, etc. But there's clearly no failure in passing a health care reform bill, no matter how bad it is. The stimulus, two successful supreme court nominations, the fair pay act, SCHIP, etc. No matter how you slice it, Obama has actually accomplished a hell of a lot. Whether you like what he has done is not an issue of "failure."

Secondly, this ridiculous idea that the conservative movement has risen as a direct result of Obama's actions is ludicrous. The tea party movement is not a rational one, and has not evaluated Obama's presidency and determined that it was necessary to fight back. They just got angry because they had the opportunity to do so. That's what happens when there's a Democrat in the White House.

This is a pompous sort of obtuseness. I can’t be responsible for your inability to make simple inferences in some places, and you projecting the worst possible interpretations in others. The first line of this Front Page entry was the acknowledgement of three events that, added up, could have profound implications for the Obama presidency. My point with the O’Donnell bit was to shake liberals out of their complacent tendency to underestimate the teabaggers. I can’t be responsible to every fantastic possible interpretation that pops into your head.

As a reader of a blog, my job is not to infer an argument where there is only a conclusion. And clearly, there was no way I could have inferred your argument, because its wholly inaccurate. While you may have underestimated the tea party, liberals as a whole sure haven't. A lot of us saw the O'Donnell win coming from a mile away. And we encouraged it. We know that the tea party is a strong part of the GOP, however, we believe it cannot sustain a national campaign. O'Donnell, like Angle, Paul, and Miller, may all win or may all lose. But every indication is that they have a significantly lesser chance than the other candidates who they beat. And even if every single tea party candidate manages to win, they still will not have success on the national stage in a national campaign. And when they get to Washington, they will only continue to embarrass the GOP. The Republicans vote in lock-step anyway, I'd rather have the crazies running through the halls of the senate as Americans look on and say shit, we f*cked up. 

As for the rest of your points:

-Even if Obama and Fenty were alike, if Fenty's fail had nothing to do with his Obama-likeness (and you have made no argument to the contrary) you can't just infer a causal relationship because it suits your argument

-Postracialism, like pretty much every political term, is used in many ways and interpreted differently by many people. So what? You can rant all you want about how Chris Matthews says it, but does that mean Obama is at fault for that? Obviously not. Obama, at least to a lot of people, is post-racial in the way I see it. That is, the history that was made by him being elected was great, but once he took that oath of office, his responsibility was the same no matter what color he was. And most of his supporters see it that way, even if you do not (but then again, you arn't one of his supporters).

-If you aren't faulting Obama for black support for him, then why is this a relevant point to be made in a diary about how Obama is like Carter and how he is getting what he deserves?

-I don't really know whether you were sarcastically "commending" me or not, or what the point of that last paragraph was at all. Obviously, I got the pun, as many people did. I'm not particularly offended by it. What was of interest to me in your title, though, was the fact that "just desserts" obviously meant "just deserts" so I was looking for an explanation for why any of this is what Obama deserves. I'm more than happy to join progressives in saying how disappointed I am in many of the decisions (or rather, concessions) he's made, but as far as his "failed" policies go I just don't see it. Surely, there are other actions that could have been taken to help the economy and create jobs. Some of them would have done a better job than Obama's policies, others a worse job. But even if we had conclusive evidence that Obama made the wrong decisions, many of what we fault him on he just could not have gotten through Congress. Faulting Obama for the existence of blue dogs and obstructionists like Landrieu, Nelson, etc. may be popular among progressives, but just isn't a legitimate gripe.

by BlueGAinDC 2010-09-22 10:58PM | 1 recs
RE: this diary fails to make any real points

Well, your response at least has a lot more substance than your actual diary. 

Having said that, your argument is still fairly thin.

I’m guessing this is about as close to a compliment I can expect. I am grateful.

This seems to be the crux of your Obama/Carter comparison (as the rest of it mostly surrounds a media narrative about Obama's personality). Not only is there no evidence that Obama will not win a second term, but the idea that his presidency is "failed" is obviously laughable. I understand the sentiment that Obama isn't living up to expectations, that his accomplishments were not significant progressive achievements, etc. But there's clearly no failure in passing a health care reform bill, no matter how bad it is. The stimulus, two successful supreme court nominations, the fair pay act, SCHIP, etc. No matter how you slice it, Obama has actually accomplished a hell of a lot. Whether you like what he has done is not an issue of "failure."

Secondly, this ridiculous idea that the conservative movement has risen as a direct result of Obama's actions is ludicrous. The tea party movement is not a rational one, and has not evaluated Obama's presidency and determined that it was necessary to fight back. They just got angry because they had the opportunity to do so. That's what happens when there's a Democrat in the White House.

I get it. You had to quickly preface your response with a backhanded compliment before labeling my stuff “thin,” because you knew your stuff was thin. Because this is awfully thin.

“There’s no evidence Obama won’t win a second”: That’s so weird I’m not even sure how to engage it. Obviously there isn’t going to be much in the way of uncertain evidence to say how the 2012 elections will play out. But since when did prognostication cease to be a valid aspect of political discussion? We can gauge the trends, look for historical parallels, and consider the president’s prior behavior. Just as I confidently posit the belief that Barack Obama won’t serve a second term, there are many of his supporters who will defiantly assert the opposite. Furthermore, boasting about all the president’s accomplishments ignores the reality that persists nonetheless: Largely because his signature achievement was foisted on the country despite great resistance, voters detest these things. Unfortunately for your argument, the traditional rubric does not apply. The economic situation has not improved. While I can’t imagine I would have voted against the Keynesian pump-priming, it has not alleviated unemployment to a substantial extent. No less than an authority than Austan Goolsbee insists that unemployment will remain unacceptably high. Faith in government is in the doldrums. These are the things electoral verdicts and historical reputations are made of. I respect your right to disagree, but for these reasons I believe Barack Obama is on track to be a failed one-term president. Like Mr. Carter.

This other passage about Tea Party fury is so confused that it cannibalizes itself. This Democratic president’s approval rating didn’t collapse the day after his inauguration. The movement known as the Tea Party wasn’t organized after the conclusion of his first week. It was the Recovery Act and the subsequent confusion of it with the bipartisan policy of TARP. Remember that only three Republicans in the Senate and a grand total of zero in the House of Representatives supported the stimulus. Misplaced reactionary rage met ineffectual Democratic policy, Tax Day 2009 came around, and the rest—as they say—is history. So once more, under his nose rose a reinvigorated conservative movement. Populist movements don’t automatically break presidencies. But that may be the story of two feckless presidents like Messrs. Carter and Obama.

As a reader of a blog, my job is not to infer an argument where there is only a conclusion. And clearly, there was no way I could have inferred your argument, because its wholly inaccurate. While you may have underestimated the tea party, liberals as a whole sure haven't. A lot of us saw the O'Donnell win coming from a mile away. And we encouraged it. We know that the tea party is a strong part of the GOP, however, we believe it cannot sustain a national campaign. O'Donnell, like Angle, Paul, and Miller, may all win or may all lose. But every indication is that they have a significantly lesser chance than the other candidates who they beat. And even if every single tea party candidate manages to win, they still will not have success on the national stage in a national campaign. And when they get to Washington, they will only continue to embarrass the GOP. The Republicans vote in lock-step anyway, I'd rather have the crazies running through the halls of the senate as Americans look on and say shit, we f*cked up. 

My ire was specifically targeted at the media establishment. I even said as much. I said they were characteristically late to the dance and that’s precisely correct. My calculation about the Tea Party is much different: I don’t underestimate them; not even the cute Satanist from Delaware. With their idiotic desire to balance the budget in an economic depression, their stuff is sure to fail. The problem is that unless we have another candidate, the county won’t hold Republicans accountable for anything until after they’ve gotten a president in 2013. That’s the cyclical nature of politics. Chris Matthews had a flash of brilliance on his weekend show a couple of weeks, in which he explained why the argument of “My opponent is extreme!” won’t work. By going so negative, the incumbent basically accepts the premise of their failed stewardship, and telegraphs a message to voters that there’s no alternative. “It’s like telling people they might as well stay home,” he said. That’s exactly right. If given the choice between President Obama and some Republican, many voters will tune out and the participatory ones—independents and teabaggers—may make the difference. That’s the story of the Republican resurgence of 2010. I’m personally gonna do everything I can to work for someone who challenges the president. Unless it’s an unrepentant Hillary or something.

As for the rest of your points:

-Even if Obama and Fenty were alike, if Fenty's fail had nothing to do with his Obama-likeness (and you have made no argument to the contrary) you can't just infer a causal relationship because it suits your argument

What are you talking about? Adrian Fenty’s failure had everything to do with voter dissatisfaction with him and Ms. Rhee’s efforts to reform the school system and the twin perceptions of autocracy and neglect of the black community. I don’t know about any casual relationship that exists between the president and mayor and implied no such thing. I simply agreed with Mr. Herbert that the remarkably similar leadership styles and public personas make for a potent cautionary tale that the president should heed. I’m also aligned with Mr. Herbert in the suspicion that the president is trying to grasp the lesson. Hence, his renewed attempt to have a dialogue with voters.

-Postracialism, like pretty much every political term, is used in many ways and interpreted differently by many people. So what? You can rant all you want about how Chris Matthews says it, but does that mean Obama is at fault for that? Obviously not. Obama, at least to a lot of people, is post-racial in the way I see it. That is, the history that was made by him being elected was great, but once he took that oath of office, his responsibility was the same no matter what color he was. And most of his supporters see it that way, even if you do not (but then again, you arn't one of his supporters).

-If you aren't faulting Obama for black support for him, then why is this a relevant point to be made in a diary about how Obama is like Carter and how he is getting what he deserves?

This is what I mean by pompous obtuseness. You don’t want to understand. You desperately want to dismiss the entire thing as unserious ranting and all of that jazz. And that’s fine. I’ll say this once more: I have never faulted Barack Obama for what I perceive to be black people’s generally blind allegiance to him. Nor did I fault him for this stupid conceit of postracialism. I specifically laid the blame at the feet of the political class.

Are you aware of how many times I mentioned President Carter? Once. In the title. We’re talking about a moniker that appeared in the title. Obama’s just deserts are earned because he’s failed the American people—including black people. That doesn’t mean he’s responsible for the hitherto prevalence of the intolerance I’ve experienced in the black community. I’ve made that abundantly and I don’t see how anyone can make such a leap even without a clear declaration.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-23 12:25AM | 0 recs
RE: this diary fails to make any real points

 

Before I begin my response, I'm just going to suggest you stop taking everything so personally. There was no "backhanded complement" as there was no complement at all. I was merely evaluating your response- it was more substantive than the original post. Along the same lines, my suggestion that your argument is "thin" was an evaluation of your response and not directed at you as a poster.  Furthermore, your posts all contain hyperbolic, nonsensical language meant to demean my arguments, which seems more than a little inappropriate for a front page diarist. "That's so weird," "so confused that it cannibalizes itself", "pompous obtuseness" ? Are you kidding me? You preface every one of your points with strange phrases you seem to think help your argument, or at least degrade mine. If you want to say my argument is weak and then proceed to explain why, then by all means do so. But "cannibalizes itself"? WTF? Anyway, lets move on to substance: Obama's Second Term Of course there is an argument to be made that he will win, or lose, a second term. But you spoke of it as if it was a foregone conclusion, which it certainly isn't. Obama's poll numbers are not plummeting, and have remained fairly steady this the initial drop-off of support some time ago. The opposition seems to lack a viable candidate, at least at this point. Obama has a long way to go before he is in a position where you can just say "it looks like they both will preside over breathtakingly failed one-term presidencies" without making a plausible argument for why it "looks" that way. The Tea Party Regardless of when the tea party movement sprang up, it is very clearly nothing more than the fringe element of the right wing rearing its head at a time when it became most convenient. Can you honestly tell me that you believe that the members of the tea party would have responded any different to anything Obama did? Especially since you seem to be arguing that Obama was not progressive enough! How can you honestly believe that the tea party members would have embraced MORE progressive policies than Obama's? Furthermore, you are completely wrong about why the Tea party will fail. It has nothing to do with their economic ideas of balancing the budget, but their social extremism, tendency to promote violence, racism, islamophobia, homophobia, etc.  So no, they will not be swept into office only to have their policies fail. People just won't vote for them because they are so turned off by their ideology. The latest Delaware poll? Coons up 55%-39%. People will reject extremism, that's how this works. Fenty Again, just because Fenty is like Obama and Fenty lost doesn't mean Obama has any reason to be worried, unless there is a causal relationship between WHY Fenty lost and WHY Obama should be worried (a point you have failed to address). And since this is about Fenty and not Obama, why is it in this diary? Postracialism Again, I DO understand why you have a problem with this concept, what I DO NOT understand is why you think this issue is a priority when you have the tea party et al. spewing off actual racism. And again, since you arn't faulting Obama for this, why is this in the diary? Carter The fact you mentioned him only once, in the title, is exactly what is so wrong with your post- you don't have a coherent argument. Overall, you seem to be admitting that this diary has little to do with Obama whatsoever. It's about Fenty, its about Postracialism, its about the tea party, its about the media, etc. But its not about how Obama is a "chocolate carter" nor is it about Obama getting his just deserts. I'm sure you will try to insult me some more with your wonderfully strange phrases because I've illustrated how horribly flawed your diary is. But let me point out that while other's have rejected your diary based solely on your title phrase or your hatred of Obama, etc., I have looked at each and every point and tried to understand what you were trying to say. In the end, however, your diary begins with a provocative title and proceeds to make several disjointed and rather inaccurate points. And while I respect your right to share your opinion, doing do without providing any basis or evidence for your points makes the whole exercise rather futile. So those are the reasons why I conclude that this diary is a complete and utter failure. 

Before I begin my response, I'm just going to suggest you stop taking everything so personally. There was no "backhanded complement" as there was no complement at all. I was merely evaluating your response- it was more substantive than the original post. Along the same lines, my suggestion that your argument is "thin" was an evaluation of your response and not directed at you as a poster. 

Furthermore, your posts all contain hyperbolic, nonsensical language meant to demean my arguments, which seems more than a little inappropriate for a front page diarist. "That's so weird," "so confused that it cannibalizes itself", "pompous obtuseness" ? Are you kidding me? You preface every one of your points with strange phrases you seem to think help your argument, or at least degrade mine. If you want to say my argument is weak and then proceed to explain why, then by all means do so. But "cannibalizes itself"? WTF?

Anyway, lets move on to substance:

Obama's Second Term

Of course there is an argument to be made that he will win, or lose, a second term. But you spoke of it as if it was a foregone conclusion, which it certainly isn't. Obama's poll numbers are not plummeting, and have remained fairly steady this the initial drop-off of support some time ago. The opposition seems to lack a viable candidate, at least at this point. Obama has a long way to go before he is in a position where you can just say "it looks like they both will preside over breathtakingly failed one-term presidencies" without making a plausible argument for why it "looks" that way.

The Tea Party

Regardless of when the tea party movement sprang up, it is very clearly nothing more than the fringe element of the right wing rearing its head at a time when it became most convenient. Can you honestly tell me that you believe that the members of the tea party would have responded any different to anything Obama did? Especially since you seem to be arguing that Obama was not progressive enough! How can you honestly believe that the tea party members would have embraced MORE progressive policies than Obama's?

Furthermore, you are completely wrong about why the Tea party will fail. It has nothing to do with their economic ideas of balancing the budget, but their social extremism, tendency to promote violence, racism, islamophobia, homophobia, etc. 

So no, they will not be swept into office only to have their policies fail. People just won't vote for them because they are so turned off by their ideology. The latest Delaware poll? Coons up 55%-39%. People will reject extremism, that's how this works.

Fenty

Again, just because Fenty is like Obama and Fenty lost doesn't mean Obama has any reason to be worried, unless there is a causal relationship between WHY Fenty lost and WHY Obama should be worried (a point you have failed to address). And since this is about Fenty and not Obama, why is it in this diary?

Postracialism

Again, I DO understand why you have a problem with this concept, what I DO NOT understand is why you think this issue is a priority when you have the tea party et al. spewing off actual racism. And again, since you arn't faulting Obama for this, why is this in the diary?

Carter

The fact you mentioned him only once, in the title, is exactly what is so wrong with your post- you don't have a coherent argument.

Overall, you seem to be admitting that this diary has little to do with Obama whatsoever. It's about Fenty, its about Postracialism, its about the tea party, its about the media, etc. But its not about how Obama is a "chocolate carter" nor is it about Obama getting his just deserts.

I'm sure you will try to insult me some more with your wonderfully strange phrases because I've illustrated how horribly flawed your diary is. But let me point out that while other's have rejected your diary based solely on your title phrase or your hatred of Obama, etc., I have looked at each and every point and tried to understand what you were trying to say.

In the end, however, your diary begins with a provocative title and proceeds to make several disjointed and rather inaccurate points. And while I respect your right to share your opinion, doing do without providing any basis or evidence for your points makes the whole exercise rather futile. So those are the reasons why I conclude that this diary is a complete and utter failure. 

 

by BlueGAinDC 2010-09-23 11:29AM | 2 recs
RE: this diary fails to make any real points

Before I begin my response, I'm just going to suggest you stop taking everything so personally. There was no "backhanded complement" as there was no complement at all. I was merely evaluating your response- it was more substantive than the original post. Along the same lines, my suggestion that your argument is "thin" was an evaluation of your response and not directed at you as a poster. 

Furthermore, your posts all contain hyperbolic, nonsensical language meant to demean my arguments, which seems more than a little inappropriate for a front page diarist. "That's so weird," "so confused that it cannibalizes itself", "pompous obtuseness" ? Are you kidding me? You preface every one of your points with strange phrases you seem to think help your argument, or at least degrade mine. If you want to say my argument is weak and then proceed to explain why, then by all means do so. But "cannibalizes itself"? WTF?

I don’t take any of this personal. I’m quite sure many of the drive-by commenters would perhaps like for me to take it personally given the lengths they go to insult me unprovoked, but I’m amused by all of this if anything. As far as criticizing my sniping, you can save that. You began your last response labeling my post as “thin.” There’s no difference whatsoever between you calling my argument “thin” and me highlighting your persistent attempt to belittle my argument with your pompous obtuseness. I don’t mind the insults—I just ask people refrain from complaining when I return fire. This will never be a one-sided wallop, I can assure you. 

I seem to recall first asserting my belief that Obama’s a one-term disaster and then girding the argument with a few salient points. He’s a failure because the American people recoiled at the Democrats’ foisting ObamaCare on the country despite massive resistance; the American people disrespect almost every one of the achievements he’s otherwise been lauded for; citizens’ trust in our nation’s top institutions are depressed; his economic policies have proved woefully inadequate; not to mention a general "malaise" (Zbig's word, not mine) that has enveloped the nation.    

You’re flailing all over the place. My simple point regarding the Tea Party was to say that, like Carter, his policies have given new life to a previously moribund conservative movement. Moreover, his feckless governance and political ineptitude has given credence to much of the opposition’s argument. Like Carter. I made no attempt to defend reactionary hostility to government intervention on the merits. As far as me being “completely wrong” about the cause of the Tea Party’s certain in the future—you are willing to dabble in certainties that aren’t!—that’s your perspective. But perhaps I should meekly tiptoe here—after all that citation of a Senate poll from Delaware pretty much devastates my entire argument.

Apropos Mr. Fenty’s troubles and the teachable moment they provide the president with, this is not beyond the realm of respectable opinion. Bob Herbert at least agrees with me. He writes for The New York Times. And he’s awesome.

Your problem is that instead of simply stating your disagreement, you obnoxiously insist on proffering these silly meta-criticisms. If my diary seemed to suggest a prioritization of condescending white paternalism before reputed teabagger racism, that’s a simple criticism. It just happens to be completely irrelevant to anything because that wasn't the focus of this diary. But fine; you’re welcome to that. That's nothing more than a thought that popped into your head. I can't be responsible for that. Would you care to rewrite the diary as well?  

The fact you mentioned him [Carter] only once, in the title, is exactly what is so wrong with your post- you don't have a coherent argument.

This is simply stupid and there’s no better way for me to put it. “Chocolate Carter” was a moniker. Why in God’s name would I be expected to explain a nickname—one of many possible ones—for the president? So if I wrote a diary in 2007 titled, “Trimming Time for Shrub,” lighting upon whatever political difficulties President Bush may have had to deal with, are you telling me I would be expected to first explain what I meant in referring to George W. Bush as “Shrub”? Not so. Most people would have been able to instantly make the inference. It’s the same situation with “Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter” (Christ, I love that). The folk who don't take exception to my supposing that the 44th president is, in many ways, the second coming of the 39th, wouldn’t require such remedial explanation. They would have immediately got it. Despite your (feigned) incredulity, I believe the same can be said for all the people who feel precisely the opposite way. You guys disaprove of the comparison of Obama and Jimmy Carter. In response the most frequent, and petty, tactic has been to demand a full explanation for a moniker in the title. That’s silly.

This is getting to be tired. I’ve lost patience with circular arguments where critics pretend not to understand anything for the purposes of dismissing my argument out of hand. I may be fairly young but quite frankly, you people don’t impress me enough to give you that much. My perspective is generally unpopular in most “progressive” precincts. I also have a way of tweaking my subjects. You all disagree. That’s fine. Otherwise take those pompous meta-criticisms and stick them back in your empty pockets.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-23 12:27PM | 0 recs
RE: this diary fails to make any real points

I too have tired of this argument. All my criticisms were valid ones and as a front page diarist you should be able to handle them. But you clearly have no place post on the front of this blog. 

The point I've tried to make, and I believe I've made very well, is that I do not fault you for your opinion, but for the way you've expressed it. This "Meta-critisism" is not only not "silly" but its entirely appropriate. 

I've been a regular reader of this blog, despite only commenting or posting diaries very rarely. I do not feel a need to "leave" it because there is nothing that binds me to it. But I actually do like reading the differing perspectives, even when some of them (Jerome's usually) infuriate me. But while I entirely disagree with most of his arguments, at least he makes coherent, fact-based arguments.

The point of my meta criticism was to expose the fact that your diary is nothing more than a rant on several topics under a provocative heading, and does nothing to further any real discussion.

Your youth is no excuse. I don't know how old you are, but I'm probably not much older if at all. 

As someone who enjoys coming to MyDD to read real analysis and well-argued opinion, I believe I have every right to criticize diaries which I think are distracting.

I do not wish to rewrite your diary, because I completely disagree with its premise. But then again, I'm still unclear about what exactly that premise even is.

And on top of that, I still have no idea why you can't just respond to points without using terms like "weird" "obtuse" "pompous" "flailing" etc. There is a big difference between using these phrases to express your outrage at how hard it is for you to respond to someone as irrational as I am, and calling your argument "thin" and proceeding to explain exactly why it is "thin."

To be honest, I think you should take some of what I say personally. I think you have been unnecessarily rude in the way you respond, a fact that seems to me to be further evidence you have no business posting on the front page.

In conclusion, I will not stick my meta-criticisms in my "empty pockets." Your post is not one I merely disagree with substantively, as you wish was the case. Rather, I find your post lacking in the structure, rhetoric, and logical formulation necessary to distinguish a solid argument from a disjointed rant.

by BlueGAinDC 2010-09-23 01:43PM | 2 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

What a nasty incoherent screed. The first version contained a few phrases that could have been lifted from some Tea Party site that are now missing. Chocolate Carter (guess changing the offensive title was a bridge to far), Barry (now deleted) some reference to blacks being "disciplined" (also deleted). 

I guess your article is proof this is not a post racial America at all. You could talk about Obama's Corporatist DLC policies without even mentioning he is black just as you could recount the same policies from the Clintons without referencing their race. I don't recall critiques of Bill Clinton's support of Republican policies like deregulation, globilazation and welfare reform centering around his being white. Obama's problem are his policies.

Of course for a segment of the white population his race seems to be a huge issue and for a host of political hacks that is something to exploit. 

by hankg 2010-09-22 08:22PM | 1 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

I'm going to need you to take your meds and read the piece again. Nothing's been changed! President Obama, in one instance, is still "Barry." I maintain my insistence that there exists an "iron-clad intellectual discipline" in the black community re: Obama. The only editing I did was to clean up a few grammatical errors, and to make clear the fact that the voice you heard is a black one. What is wrong with you?

As I said the first time before the post was mysteriously deleted, the whole point here was to discuss three major events of the past week: the first is completely unrelated to the last two, which I zeroed in on. They dealt with the fascinating topic of black support for the president.

What FP entry did you read since it obviously wasn't this one? You must have stumbled into the wrong topic. It happens.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 08:30PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

A helpful repost:

btw how is "Chocolate Carter" any more offensive than, say, "Chocolate Jesus"? That wasn't Rush Limbaugh; that was the insanely awesome Bill Maher.

And before you even go: "'Barry From DC': President Obama Surprises Talk Radio Show With Call-In."

Any other shibboleths I can knock down for you? At your service, chap.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 08:31PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

Another helpful repost:

Before we conclude our bit of business here, I'd like to commend you for understanding the innocent thought behind the title, "Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter." Since I'm not a pious, humorless prick, I thought it was fun. "Just desserts" (which, of course, is not the correct phrase) meshed well with a hilarious and satirical synonym for "black": Chocolate. (See Bill Maher's "Chocolate Jesus" for further context.) And I've already explained the Carter allegory, which I thought would be a fairly obvious one.

(This particular explanation, I think, appeared almost immediately above your incohorent and nasty screed. Incredible.)

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 08:33PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

Hankg, B

Breathe into a paper bag and try again, bro.

 

Yr. Obt. Svt.,

"Jack"

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 08:36PM | 0 recs
Is this the re-incarnation of the Jon Stewart vs. Tucker CArlson interview?

If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. If you want to have an edgy satirical wit, be edgy and satirical. Bill Maher is a satirist, comedian, and social commentator. You, as Stephen Colbert would say to Sarah Palin, are fucking retarded.

by alectimmerman 2010-09-22 10:24PM | 0 recs
RE: Is this the re-incarnation of the Jon Stewart vs. Tucker CArlson interview?

While this was an incredibly serious and witty attempt, I'm afraid you have miserably failed the simple test: Explain the difference between "Chocolate Jesus" and "Chocolate Carter"? Is Bill Maher going to have to employ the term before it's acceptable.

Nice try though.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 10:31PM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

Come to think of it, I'm reminded of another innocent and particularly famous use of the word "chocolate" in reference to black people: NOLA Mayor Nagin! "The Chocolate City," right? He even appeared on Colbert who made a little riff on it and described the District as, "The 'chocolate city' with a marshmallow center." 

Goodness, you folks really are unhinged. Bless your hearts.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 08:43PM | 0 recs
The "Chocolate Carte" I LOVE it

Didn't read the post, but I loved the title. 

Like Carter, he will later found to right about most everything.

Like Carter, he was demonized by a radical and and deadly wrong conservative base.

Like Carter, his hard choices set up a winning economy for the next decade.

And like Carter, he was stabbed in the back by the left wing of the democratic party.

Yeah, our Chocolate Carter!!!!

by zmus 2010-09-22 09:40PM | 2 recs
Goodness... someone is unhinged, but sadly it is not us.

You know, I can understand your attitude, your anger, but I really cannot take any more of this ridiculous defeatist rants. Progressive movement is not dead, but you were the last person I would expect to happily give up and stab the movement in the heart and toss any type of actual constructive agrument to get us back into the game out the window and just give up entirely. Excuse my language but, coming here today was like being called a Pickaninny back in South Carolina and having watermelons tossed at me by sick white kinds in the back of trucks that sped by our neck of the town. What the hell? Seriously I'm sorry but why would you even try to condone such idiotic wording and then excuse it with the tried 'well see other people said it'. Yeah Other people called my wife 'milk chocolate' while she walked down the street, and I was expected to hold my tongue and just let that crap go by. You can give up, and just happily stab at wounds as long as you like, but in the end you either bury the corpse you are making or you take the person to the hospital. Yes I am offended by your remark, but I'm more offended by your dismissal of your statement, yes some of us just don't like the return of the 'old days.' Bless our hearts that we remember those times. Since apparently someone doesn't.

by ShadTM 2010-09-22 09:50PM | 1 recs
RE: Goodness... someone is unhinged, but sadly it is not us.

Lord, grant me strength. I am not the least bit moved by any of this. It's pathetic. You should have seen the first post before it was mysteriously deleted. Before many of the commenters realized I was black, they instantly played the Race card. Since then everyone's been playing stupid.

A simple question: If you're offended, have you turned off Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher? Did you fire off an outraged email to Mayor Nagin's office? There's really absolutely no difference. Explain yourself, if you care. How's "Chocolate Jesus" any better than "Chocolate Carter"? I'm not interested in your heart-tugging emotional appeal. Explain your inconsistency.

I'm not a pc guy. At all. I like Bill Maher. I love Richard Pryor. I could go on and on. I'm an irreverent guy. Postracial, if you will. It's 2010. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 10:04PM | 0 recs
So all in all

This post was a disaster. A poorly done hit job where you ended up driving away even morealready people from a sinking site including one of the better front pagers.

 

Well done. 

by jsfox 2010-09-22 09:55PM | 2 recs
RE: So all in all

I'm assuming from the "Well done," this was directed to me.

Humor me: If this is indeed true, why would you even bother making such a self-evident statement? What's your angle? I'm genuinely curious.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 10:07PM | 0 recs
So are you going to College or still at High School?

Serious Question!

by louisprandtl 2010-09-22 11:11PM | 1 recs
All Things Considered

I'm guessing 'sophomore.'

by Shaun Appleby 2010-09-23 12:01AM | 2 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

I've got an even more serious one: How long did it take you to come up with that? It's so obvious and lame, I'm guessing you were ashamed and hoping I wouldn't notice. LOL. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-22 11:27PM | 0 recs
Did you take your parents' permission

before posting your drug infused rants in this blog?

by louisprandtl 2010-09-22 11:45PM | 0 recs
RE: Did you take your parents' permission

This is not an improvement, I'm afraid. You should like Ed Schultz trying to funny.

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-23 12:27AM | 0 recs
RE: Did you take your parents' permission

sound

by Jack Landsman 2010-09-23 12:28AM | 0 recs
RE: Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter

Is this snark?

Serious question.

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2010-09-23 01:18AM | 1 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads