Skip to main content

View Diary: I Apologize, Profoundly. Update, a Thank You (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Two kinds of racism at work with this president. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, EdinStPaul, qofdisks

    On the right, it's blatant racism.

    But on the left, sadly, it's often latent racism at work.

    One example: Keith Olbermann.

    Several months ago, when President Obama addressed the nation on what was going on in Afghanistan, Olbermann, on his show, got on his soapbox and instructed the president of what he "should" say in his speech.

    Did Olbermann criticize GWB? Almost constantly. But I never remember Olbermann telling GWB what he "should" say.

    Keith, Obama doesn't need your help. I think the record shows he's quite capable.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:15:57 AM PDT

    •  Commentators have been telling (31+ / 0-)

      Presidents what to say in their speeches since there have been commentators and presidents.

      Olberman didn't tell Bush what he should say because Bush was in the other party. Republican commentators had no problem saying, "What the President needs to say/do is this".

      It's bizarre, almost incredible, that you're unfamiliar with this rhetorical device.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:28:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really (13+ / 0-)

        Criticism of the president is not always driven by racism. BenderRodgriguez fell into the same trap as Liberal Granny.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:40:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A citizen telling a President what he should say (19+ / 0-)

          or do is a feature, not a bug, of living in a Republic, not a monarchy.

          (Of course, people have been saying what kings should say/do since there have been kings, but they were more circumspect about who was in earshot when doing so)

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:59:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am very glad LG is back, and accept her apology (4+ / 0-)

          heartily, but her position was in fact wrong.

          I ordinarily would never post this in an apology diary, but seems some folks have re-opened the original argument, so I'm going to state my position.

          I criticized Bill Clinton quite as much as I have criticized Obama.  This is not about race. This is about people who care most about electing Democrats vs people who care most about changing policy.  Everybody falls at a different point on that spectrum, and everybody draws the line at a different place.

          For me, the line gets drawn by my understanding of the political process we're in--a really ugly one that is taking us to the right--and my belief that it will never end unless someone challenges it and ends it.  And I figured that out with Kathy Hochul and Medicare, when the discourse on Medicare moved to the right, to a pro-cuts position, regardless of what happened in NY-26, to say nothing of the nationwide polls on Medicare, which show enormous popular support. None of that mattered.  The process continued rightward.  The process always continues rightward.  It wavered a bit and shifted, at least in terms of lip-service, leftward, during and after the height of the Occupy movement.  In other words, someone challenged it loudly, and it fell back a little.

          Unless someone really fights, the process will continue and we will move further to the right. And it's not a matter of accepting one policy shift on one issue.  It's a matter of accepting a continuous trek to the right on every issue involving money. Dealing with that, ultimately, is more important to me than electing Democrats.  For many, that's not so.  God bless 'em, I think many if not most of them are doing what they think is right and best for the country.  From where I stand, it's not.

          That's all.

          Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:44:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  same here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TiaRachel

            I got so fed up with Clinton that in '96 I wouldn't vote for him - I voted for Nader! This after being thrilled with the '92 victory.

            He continues to disappoint - witness his attendance at a Pete Peterson cut social security thing, telling environmentalists to "chill," etc.

            sometimes he can be OK, but in general he exemplifies everything wrong with the Democrats.

            The idea that progressives only criticize Obama and never Clinton is simply not true.

            An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

            by mightymouse on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:27:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Actually KO (12+ / 0-)

        may not have told Bush what to say but he refuted and mocked most of what Bush did say. He was the one voice in a dark time who had the guts to publicly undress the emperor.  It's a democracy folks and no pol is above criticism, in fact it is healthy. When we get to a point where the lauding or criticism of an elected official by both sides is more important then policy and agenda we end up with dueling  propagandist's rather then any meaningful political discourse.      

        •  Telling a public official what to do and say (6+ / 0-)

          is merely a function that public officials are, collectively, our employees.

          Bender's statement is simply bizarrely amnesiac, but it's not unique.

          For example, a while back, it was claimed on DKos (I can't remember by whom) that the phrase "public servant" was racist when applied to Obama, because it evoked slavery, and the person claiming this also claimed to have never heard the phrase "public servant" before. Seriously?

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue May 22, 2012 at 09:10:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That is a lot of assuming there. (12+ / 0-)

      So you've heard/read every statement that Olbermann made about Bush?  It strikes me that Olbermann WOULD be someone who would tell anyone what to say.  

      But let's go with that assumption that he never "told" Bush what to say.  Could it also be that Olbermann feels more aligned with Obama - and thus feels more comfortable or even more entitled to tell him what he should say?  Could his coment have been more along the line of "Hey!  You're on MY side... here's what you SHOULD be saying!"

      Thinking of my own interaction with people.  I am probably 1000 times more likely to tell a friend what they should say than someone who I don't feel aligned with or who I don't feel I know.

      And isn't your objection just one small step away?  Isn't criticism merely saying what you think someone should or should not do/say?  Does that mean that any criticism is racist if the two parties are not of the same ethnic background?  And isn't thinking along those lines more likely to perpetrate separation of peoples than a bringing together?

      Just a different way of seeing things.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:05:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish that SOMEONE would give him some advice (0+ / 0-)

      He seriously dropped in my estimation when he answered the H1B question.   I wish Olbermann, or someone -- anyone -- had been there to give him a clue.

      I've seen more inspiring speakers.  

    •  and you think Olbermann was being 'racist' Bender? (13+ / 0-)

      cause I dont see it in what you posted...  maybe there was a bigger picture to that incident you didn't express??

      Olbermann telling Obama what he should say in a speech was probably more along the lines of Olbermann feeling frustrated that our President wasn't saying what keith wanted to hear from him...  with regard to Dubya, no one had much expectations when HE gave a speech and the only thing Olbermann probably wanted to hear from Bush was "I am heartfully sorry for being such a BAD president and I resign"...  and how many times can someone say that before people know its a given  :)

      "Orwell was an optimist"

      by KnotIookin on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:30:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BradyB, chuckvw

      During the Clinton & Carter years, criticism from the media and from fellow Dems was constant, frequent and sometimes unfair.  It happens, though it shouldn't.

      But it wasn't racism then, its not racism now.

      "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Edward R. Murrow

      by Betty Pinson on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:36:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site