Reply #30: No offense, MBS, but I get tired at this idea that white progressives are all latte elitists who

[Mass]

got everything as soon as they wanted it. It is both ludicrous and insulting. Many activists have led a life that was financially a lot worse than our president as a child and a teenager, who was solidly middle-class and got to go to the best institutions (with scholarship, but it is still better than many). Enough is enough with this race war. And, while there is no doubt racism subsists, the major woes of the African American community are economical (certainly increased by years of discrimination). The only thing I believe in in the Marxist theory is "Workers of all country, unite". Frankly, making it and saying "Workers of all background, unite", rather than entertaining these artificial distinction. Can we move on. And frankly hearing once again the "latte limousine" democrat in this piece disturbs me. There must be other ways to defend Obama than race warfare.

I am not saying that the historical context here is not correct and that black men (or women) have not been subject to discrimination for years, but why does this person preach moving things on by Obama being careful not to offend white people. Did MLK succeed by avoiding offending the racists? It makes no sense to me, and, if it does, it is offensive.

Even worse, the myth of the "latte limousine" democrat is attached to Obama by its enemies (including a few crazies on the left). There are racists in our society. There are some in the right. There are some among centrist democrats, and there are some on the left as well. They will not be placated because our president will avoid rocking the boat. RACISM is not the domain of progressives only. The Ben Nelson's of the world are no less racist than a Bernie Sanders, who would be very surprised to learn that he got everything the minute he asked for it

The second point is that I am not sure whether the author is correct about Obama not wanting to rock the boat for the reason he advances. From the beginning (2004), I thought Obama was like that, a pragmatic who is trying to get people to work together. It is the way he sees things done (why should I not take him at his word), and I respect him enough to think he is sincere. If he is not and he does that because white men could feel offended, what image does that make of him? How is it not just as offensive as the "corporate sellout" some progressives have adopted.

A black man who protests will be seen as a angry black man and because of that, current African American leaders should avoid to show anger(or even energy, engagement, because I dont see too many people asking to Obama to be angry, but to show some passion -- BTW, our own governor seems to do very well on the side of showing passion. It may be that we are in MA, but MA is not a place without racism and prejudism).

As I said in a thread where this was posted, I dont pretend to understand what it is to be a black man in America or either, and as somebody born in France, some of the historical references may escape me, but, as a white woman, I've heard for many years that you cannot be a successful woman and have a love life that is successful. This is the closest example I can imagine that is relevant here. In French, there is an expression for that "mal baisee", (not sure the exact translation in English, but, if I say that "mal" is "poorly" and baisee in this case is "fucked" you will get the feeling. By this rhetoric and applying the same hundred of years of prejudice, this is exactly the type of prejudice women in my lifetime have had to fight against. Thanksfully, MLK or the leaders of the feminist movement did not spend to much time wondering what the white man would think, or we still would be where we were in the 1950s and 1960s.

It may just be one of these things you cannot talk in American, or you will be called crazy (single payer or at least a decent universal healthcare, an affordable higher education, a different foreign policy, ...). We are letting the right framing the debate and this article is another example.

BTW, Obama is already dismissed as an angry black man by the racists the writer is referring to. That he be deferential to white men is not going to change that. The uppity negro meme is well present. But it is not the progressives that are responsible from it. It is the RW and moderate democrats.

If the writer wants to be upset about something, let him be upset about the school situation in the Boston area, where, in order to provide young African Americans with the success they are entitled to, children are still "bused" to upper middle class suburbs, having to get up at 5 am and not getting home before 5 pm. This is something to be upset by, and I would guess Boston is not the only city in American like that.

I dont want to offend anybody here, but this new line of defense just upsets me. Let us be upset with some of Obama's policy. Let those who disagree try to primary him (hopefully finding somebody better than Ed O'Reilly) if they want. I have no doubt that a decent primary challenge is not what would hurt Obama. What may, however, is what the OP and others should be worried about, the economic suffering of the middleclass and many millions of poor people who do not vote because they dont think they have anything to win whoever wins this election.