To AngryBlackLady, Joan Walsh and their supporters: You’re big players, and the team needs you.

by Karoli on April 10, 2011 · 42 comments

I’ve been afraid of this for awhile, but it’s now erupted into a full-scale blog war which I would stay the hell out of if I had more than a small pea brain and an overwhelming desire to fix that which probably can’t be fixed. Chalk it up to my childhood, where I learned to calm the angry beast that was my father by stepping between him and others whenever possible. Forgive me in advance for jumping in here…but I must.

Let me start with this: I really, really like AngryBlackLady and Joan Walsh. I think Joan does a great job of making conservative punditheads look like idiots on MSNBC, and I think AngryBlackLady is an absolute straight shooter who is amazingly smart and speaks plainly for those of us who support President Obama. Yes, I use the word “us” because my support for the President hasn’t weakened despite many barbs from the right and the left on that.

I unapologetically support him. Let’s just get all of that out of the way and on the table now.

This is why it pains me to see AngryBlackLady and Joan Walsh at loggerheads with each other. Hmm. Well, maybe loggerheads is a bad choice of words. At this point, it’s a full-scale, bubbling up of an accumulation of resentment from people of color at their perception that white progressives speak without taking them into account. It’s something I saw coming awhile ago…and wrote about several months back. Since I wrote about it, it hasn’t gotten better. It’s gotten worse, to the point where we have the liberal blogosphere nearly ignoring the right-wing insanity that’s going on right now, right here today, in favor of chewing each other (and the President) up.

This is not limited to the liberal side of things. The Tea Party is grumbling and restive and working to take over the Republican Party at local levels in order to install more of their types in Congress in 2012. As easy as it would be to dismiss their strategy and goals, I can’t. The reason I can’t is because I see a divide on our side of the aisle that not only justifies the compromises made by Democrats to this point, but sets the stage for even more, which will make some white progressives angrier and more critical and cause people like AngryBlackLady to become angrier, which means none of us are paying attention to the really important things like not only making sure the President gets re-elected but also getting some decent Congresscritters elected and while we’re at it, maybe clinging to the Senate with the shreds of our fingernails which are scratching hard to hold the edge. As long as we’re divided there is no other option for President Obama than to play straight to the middle, and even the center right. None whatsoever.

To Joan and ABL, I say this: You’re both right. Sort of.

ABL, you’re right that white progressives have leveled criticism without regard to how that feels to people of color who view it in the terms Ismael Reed laid out last year:

When these progressives refer to themselves as Mr. Obama’s base, all they see is themselves. They ignore polls showing steadfast support for the president among blacks and Latinos. And now they are whispering about a primary challenge against the president. Brilliant! The kind of suicidal gesture that destroyed Jimmy Carter — and a way to lose the black vote forever.

Joan Walsh, you’re right about needing some room to be critical without being perceived as being racist.

But the bigger point is: If progressives of any race want to turn valid, policy criticism of President Obama into a racial issue? They’ll be very, very sorry in November 2012. And so will the rest of us. I didn’t intend to be part of any brawl, but if someone flings race at me, repeatedly, when I think it’s unfair and divisive, I will tell you what I think.  I’ll do it with right-wing racists, as I’ve shown here for years, and I’ll do it with folks on the left. Race has divided us for too long, and people who want to continue the divisiveness are part of the problem, no matter how “progressive” they believe they are.

Joan, you’re right and you’re wrong all at the same time. When those policy criticisms are solely aimed at Barack Obama and don’t include the clueless Congress or what small, tiny little minds reside in the Senate, it’s hard to accept as legitimate, and I say that as a white chick who consistently gets hammered for being an apologist for the president. If you’re an executive with the ‘get-it-done’ team constantly divided in two diametrically opposite directions, an amazing and arcane process to navigate, the press gabbling on about whether your birth certificate is valid while Villagers all nod with wise and serious faces while soberly saying that extremists like Paul Ryan are actually serious, courageous politicians, it’s enough to make you just throw your hands in the air and say “screw this, who needs it?”

It is possible to criticize policy without criticizing the guy who’s trying to guide something through and get it done. And it is essential that we criticize policy while remaining firmly in support of the President in order to keep from being shoved farther right than they already are!

To ABL (et al, since I’m using her as proxy for the others who are also speaking out) I say this: Arguing over who is THE base is not going to get us anywhere. You or me or the president. It’s not.

Here’s the truth: White progressives aren’t THE base, but they’re part of the base. We are all interdependent on each other not only to keep this country from falling completely off the rails but also to actually move it forward, one painful inch after the next. We need each other, more now than ever.

Let me give you an example of why. It’s likely we’ve already lost the battle for our public schools, because the real legacy George Bush gave us was his faith-based initiatives, which opened a torrent of money to be poured into the charter school effort, church schools nationwide, and now they’ve got the Supreme Court decision they needed to back them up, thanks to his Supreme Court appointments. I have been digging deep for a month on this, and the deeper I go, the more despondent I feel about it. They’ve thrown BILLIONS at this issue. Billions. It’s unlikely we’ll ever recover the kind of funding for public schools that we truly need to make them competitive for all. Schools are on the brink. Prisons are already gone.

That’s what President Obama has to work with. A reality that education is big business now, and was before he ever took office, and he’d better try to navigate the very best deal he possibly can because his “base” at this point isn’t going to overcome those billions.

That’s where health care and Social Security will go, too, if we divide and in the process, hand over the Senate and the House and possibly the Presidency. It will go there. So while you both are arguing over who his base is, they’re out there funding huge youth initiatives, trying to woo away the Latino vote with the Marco Rubios of the world, and taking hard aim at social safety nets we have long held near and dear in an effort to end them forever.

We can’t afford this. We need to ALL be the base. We need to focus every single day on what our ultimate goal is. There’s only one. That’s to get this man re-elected for four more years to stop the insanity that WILL (not might, but WILL) ensue if we don’t.

If you think I’m being hysterical here, I’d invite you both to look at Wisconsin and Michigan and Florida and Texas and Ohio and Arizona, etc. etc. etc. What those governors are doing in those states is exactly what Republicans will do if they get their guy in the White House.

Finally, this to both of you: I am living, breathing proof that Twitter is an environment where the wrong thing can be said, cause pain to others, and cause the entire Twitterverse to blow up. I am learning to be more circumspect. I’m not always successful. But I’m learning, because I only have one goal in front of me, and that is to stand in January, 2013 and see Barack Obama inaugurated for his second term. Perhaps there’s room in this conversation to allow that what Joan said that set everything off was simply that we’re ALL part of the base. It was inartful, and that’s the 140 character limit crashing into a more complex thought.

My hope? Can we have a dialogue about how we can work together rather than shout at each other about how far apart we stand? Would Obama do it that way? I think he would, and the result would be to move ahead to the next obstacle in front of the goal. I think we call that progress.

Update: In an ongoing discussion with Rootless_e on Twitter and others on the comment thread here, I’ve come to understand a little more clearly one area where an apology would go a long way.

The issue seems to go not to “who is the base” as much as “who speaks for the base.” Walsh wrote this on her rebuttal to truthrose1 and others:

In my lifetime, African-Americans have been the most loyal and long-suffering Democrats, and they are key to the base.

In the original twitter discussion/flareup truthrose1 reacted to Walsh’s article on Wisconsin’s lessons with this:

@joanwalsh read your article, I resent white progressives who pretend they are the base of the Dem party and ignore AA’s, we are even

These two comments appear to be in agreement with each other, but they’re not. The issue escalates every time “the base” is referred to in commentary, blog posts and television when the president is referred to negatively or harshly criticized, or there’s a suggestion that he will “lose his base.” truthrose1 is correct that in those instances there isn’t anyone speaking for the base — the one that includes Latinos and African-Americans — because if that part of the base were consulted, they would say they hate the criticism and how it’s aimed at the President and view it as a personal attack on him rather than on the policies.

And that is at the core of this conflict. This idea that the base is acknowledged as the base until someone ‘speaks for the base’ and doesn’t consider the views of his considerable Latino/African-American base.

If I have this wrong, let me know. But I think it’s a reasonable objection for truthrose1 to make, and one that should be taken seriously.

Last Update: Instincts should never be ignored. I had a sense yesterday that it was probably a bad idea to try and sort out what’s going on here. I should have listened. The more I think about this, the less business I think I have saying anything. Carry on.

1 Read this brilliant post on public education for more information. h/t @DesertBeacon

  • zizi2

    Well said. But at this point the loud voices of the so-called progressives (Perhaps not Joan0 is enough to justify the suspicion that many supposedly on our side are fifth columnists. Many of them are ex-repugs and libertarians, only pining after online hate dollars and page clicks. So for Joan to suggest primarying the Pres. or withholding contributions to his campaign, that was the last straw for ABL et al.

  • Val

    ” Joan Walsh, you’re right about needing some room to be critical without being perceived as being racist. If progressives of any race want to turn valid, policy criticism of President Obama into a racial issue? They’ll be very, very sorry in November 2012. If someone flings race at me, repeatedly, when I think it’s unfair and divisive, I will tell you what I think. ”

    Karoli – That never happened. No one tried to connect valid policy criticism of PO to racial issues. Look it up. Take all the time you need but I will give you a hint, you won’t find it because it NEVER happened.

    What Walsh should have done was to apologize. That would have been the mature thing to do.

    As an fyi – African Americans pushing back on the double standards held to this President is not equal to Tea Partiers grumbling in the Republican party. If you don’t understand that then I can’t help you.

    Regarding your hope — A dialogue won’t work if AAs are still expected to listen and not heard. Ain’t gonna happen in this 21st century. I can tell you this, the last 3+ years have opened my eyes to the Democratic party and what it truly represents. You are right to be concerned.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Val, I don’t think I argued that pushback on the double standards held to this President was unwarranted. In fact, I have spent the better part of two+ years saying the same thing. And perhaps I misread what was said in those strands (I didn’t see it in real time), but it is absolutely true that there have been accusations from some who say any criticism is racist, when it’s not. Just as there are some on the left who clearly hold double standards, there are also some on the left who level sincere criticism of policy without race as a factor, and yet are accused of racism. Did it happen in this case? I don’t know, I wasn’t there. But I have seen it happen in other cases. There has to be some space where criticism can be made without race being the reason for it.

    That’s not MY criticism. My criticism is that turning policy critiques personal is a counterproductive exercise in defeatism, regardless of his race. It is a political non-starter as soon as it becomes Obama’s policy without any credit being given for the constraints he faces with every policy decision. If he fights, he’s perceived as a radical. If he doesn’t fight, he gets painted as a wimp. Meanwhile, he ignores it all and gets the job done, day after day.

    And one for the record: I am not equating the divides in the Tea Party to this. I am simply saying they exist there, and hoping we can overcome ours while theirs festers and weakens them. I want to unite and win.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    zizi2, Joan was arguing AGAINST primarying him, saying it’s a sure-fire formula for a loss.

  • Anonymous

    I’m still wondering which black folks were ever saying black folks WERE (uniquely) “the base”, as Joan so eloquently said she resented black folks for saying.

  • Newsie

    Though I think Joan Walsh missed the point that many were trying to make to her and I think the discussion of race in progressive politics needs to happen… but is besides a larger point Walsh and other pundits have to digest.

    Progressive pundits tend to write about Democratic politics as if they are THE BASE. They may know that others in the party exist, but they analyze politics as if everyone else in the party agrees with them. That’s a problem for everyone working for progressive policies, because the people cited in the mainstream media as THE BASE (progressive pundits) are regularly people who are disconnected from the rest of the party. The tax cut deal for example. Pundits were pissed that the tax cuts for the rich were extended, and focused almost exclusively on that. The base wasn’t happy about that part but they supported the deal because of the extension of unemployment benefits.

    If you’re so disconnected from the rest of the base as a whole, you’re going to have a difficult time motivating the rest of the base or even realizing that on some issues, you have to do some persuading on your own side before you try to win over swing voters and independents.

    Plus, a lot of the “analysis” that progressive pundits write is so poor because how can you explain Democratic politics if you analyze Democratic politics as if most of the base doesn’t exist?

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    the problem with punditry: It’s delivered from a place that doesn’t always understand those one is speaking for, and so gets spoken with fuzzy focus.

    Democratic politics and progressive politics overlap but aren’t the same, either. The Democratic party is such an amalgam that it’s not possible to even blend one opinion into one that speaks “for the base.”

    Weirdly, one of the places this really comes to light is when public schools are discussed. Way too many Democrats have bought into the “public schools suck” meme, when it’s really not as true as everyone thinks it is. In the areas where it is true, that’s generally the product of GOP de-funding.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    This is how I read the exchange, as it was blogged on Wee See You http://weeseeyou.com/2011/04/09/you-are-not-the-victim-joan-walsh/

    - both sides cite Ishmael Reed’s 12/2010 column, where he said what I quoted above. He did not say that Latinos and African Americans are the only base. He said they ignore Latinos and African Americans, which some do, though I wouldn’t necessarily put Walsh in that category.

    - Joan uses that column as an example of African-Americans being exclusive about who the base is. She reads Reed as saying the Black/Latino base is the true base. He didn’t say that, but that’s what she took out of it.

    - On the other hand, she also didn’t accuse TruthRose1 of saying it. Her statement was that she resented some African-Americans who claim that. She didn’t say it was TruthRose1, but that’s what TruthRose1 took out of it.

    - No one has really said what the other side said they said. There’s a great deal of talking past each other that seems to be escalating.

    Which is why…. I moved past that piece of it. We are in deep weeds here on an issue which both sides actually agree on; that is, that the base is a diverse group of people which includes African-American/Latino groups. I would also add that it’s the fault of the networks that they don’t have actual African-Americans and Latinos speaking for that portion of the base. They ought to.

    It would be as wrong for anyone to assume that because one is African-American or Latino, they’re an Obama supporter as it would be to assume a white person isn’t. There’s diversity across all lines. If you read back in this blog you’ll find that the single theme echoed since 2008 has been frustration over the need to take aim at the President and turn it personal.

    By the same token, Clinton was drubbed hard when he was President too. It would be just as wrong to assume this very same group didn’t take him to task hard. And he was white. Speaking for me, I had about a zillion criticisms of Clinton beginning with his conduct and ending with his amazing ability to agree to things a Democrat should never have agreed to…like repealing Glass-Steagall.

    In fact, I place a ton of blame on Clinton for the crap Obama gets now. If he hadn’t made all of us nervous as hell about conceding even the smallest point to conservatives, I think the President would get more of a break from the pundit class than he does. But Clinton drove the needle far to center right, and try as he might (and he DID), Obama is yanking hard back to center left.

    For some idea of how weird perceptions are, go have a look at the number of Obama voters — voters, now, not necessarily the base, but voters — who thought he went much harder left than they expected in the first two years.

    Perceptions are tricky and sometimes distracting.

  • Anonymous

    Since I’m very confident we all value the truth over all, here, let’s recap:

    “He didn’t say that, but that’s what she took out of it.

    - On the other hand, she also didn’t accuse TruthRose1 of saying it. Her statement was that she resented some African-Americans who claim that.”

    So the rationale for Joan’s resentment of “some” black folks is simply spun out of whole cloth.

    And you’re here telling ABL and Joan that they’re BOTH wrong.

    lolwut

    Pro tip: there is not, in point of fact, any law anywhere that says you absolutely MUST defend Joan.

    And the very concept that liberals were just as hard on Clinton is simply asinine. And I’m pretty sure you know it. Referring to the pro tip above may be helpful again.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    I’m really trying not to defend anyone. I’m trying to get to a place where we might be able to have a reasonable discussion. Joan is a big girl. So is ABL. So is TruthRose1, who is more than capable of defending herself right alongside everyone else.

    I am trying to see if there is a way to have a constructive discussion where the very real anger that is now flowing like lava can be resolved in a way that heals rather than destroys. I tried hard and failed, evidently, to aim my commentary at a higher level than who said what to who. To any reader who wasn’t there at the time any of this happened, it feels like it comes down to who will claim the base and who will not.

    And as I understand it, that’s not really the issue. The issue is marginalization, which is something that should transcend the question of who the base is.

    As to Clinton and whether liberals were hard on him? I’m talking the liberals who were blogging and/or speaking, punditizing now…They were, especially when he bearhugged the DLC and most especially after signing DOMA into law.

  • Anonymous

    “I tried hard and failed, evidently…. ps, pro tip: I told them they were both right. it’s right in the middle. ”

    (facepalm)

    One more time, slowly. Let’s examine this.

    “ABL, you’re right that white progressives have leveled criticism without regard to how that feels to people of color…”

    This is correct. Should have just stopped the post there. Unfortunately, you kept talking:

    “Joan Walsh, you’re right about needing some room to be critical without being perceived as being racist.”

    ABL complained on the basis of Joan claiming something (viz a viz nonexistent black folks claiming exclusive rights to “the base”) THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE NEVER HAPPENED.

    Pro-est tip ever: if we white folks want to criticize without being perceived as racist, maybe we shouldn’t make shit up about black folks, and call that made-up thing our reason for resenting black folks.

    Regarding what the ABL/Joan issue actually was, there are not (as you essentially acknowledge) two correct sides. In your earnest desire to include the white lady in the “correct” side, you yourself make up an issue for her to be right about.

    I therefore would have difficulty refuting someone who felt that what you posted is not, conceptually, significantly different from what Joan initially did herself: make shit up (an issue that never was the issue), solely for the purpose of being able to declare white folks correct.

  • Val

    none. No one said blacks were the base. The point was when the msm speaks about the base, it should make an effort to represent all the people that supports this President.

  • http://twitter.com/rootless_e rootless

    But Karoli you keep sliding past the key point: Joan invented a story that the bad black people were telling her that the base was only black people and then she said she resented being told that. So, in summary, Joan provided a textbook case of white privilege: she RESENTED having her racism (conscious or not) pointed out and then lied to justify herself. There are not two sides. Joan is supposed to be a professional journalist, so her bullshit on this and other issues not excusable. This is very similar to Sean Wilentz’s infamous “Race Man” article and it is no less repellent.

  • http://twitter.com/rootless_e rootless

    Even if you ignore the race issue, Joan Walsh’s entire article was deeply offensive and light on facts. Obama broke his promise on Guantanamo – as if the Congress had not forbid closing it. Obama passed DADT the wrong way!?? That was appalling. And on and on – all supposed to explain why “progressives” are not going to line up to support the President.

  • http://weeseeyou.com Sepia

    If this was the first and only comment Joan Walsh made, or if she had apologized, then MAYBE I would willing to forgive and forget. But no…this is another in a series of statements where Walsh has demonstrated her sense of white entitlement AND tried to undercut President Obama.

    Instead of asking Truthrose why she felt white progressives were dismissive, Walsh LIED and claimed Truthrose and Ishmael Reed claimed AAs were the base. Instead of saying, “My bad you guys”, she went to Elon James White’s “Blacking It Up” radio show and wrote about her “black friend” Melissa Harris-Perry as if to say “See? Black people like me! They really, really like me!”, which really offended me.

    Here’s another thought, Karoli: If Walsh was a Republican, the liberals/progressives and some Black folks defending her would’ve called her everything but a child of God. But because she claims to be a “progressive”, we should kiss and makeup?

    Nope. I can’t do that. Enough is enough. I have run out of cheeks to turn.

  • http://weeseeyou.com Sepia

    Joan Walsh did not say “some”. She said, point blank that she resents African Americans who say they are the base, thus including Truthrose in that false accusation.

    - No one has really said what the other side said they said. There’s a great deal of talking past each other that seems to be escalating.

    Sounds like you’re using the “But both sides do it” defense Repubs used when trying to defend their misdeeds that progressives criticize them for.

    By the same token, Clinton was drubbed hard when he was President too. It would be just as wrong to assume this very same group didn’t take him to task hard. And he was white. Speaking for me, I had about a zillion criticisms of Clinton beginning with his conduct and ending with his amazing ability to agree to things a Democrat should never have agreed to…like repealing Glass-Steagall.

    I don’t remember progressives calling for Clinton to be impeached, calling for a primary challenger, accusing him of being the second coming of his Republican predecessors, calling his sexist, weak, spineless…etc.

  • http://weeseeyou.com Sepia

    But she was encouraging progressives not to work with OFA, which is the heart of POTUS’s re-election campaign. How is that any different?

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Sepia, thanks for your reply. I’m not necessarily saying forgive and forget. Someone else thought I was telling them to shut up. Absolutely not. What I am saying is that it seems like a full airing of the anger that’s been boiling for a long time is something that should happen (anger that transcends the question of who the base might be), and perhaps in the process we can find a way to resolve it in order to move forward. At least, that’s my hope. I’m not telling anyone what to do, however….just sharing what one supporter with the goal of re-election in 2012 hopes for.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    rootless, do you think I’m anti-gay? There is a large chunk of the gay community on the far left who thinks I am. Or thought so, anyway, because I had a tantrum one night on twitter over the impatience over the slowness of the DADT repeal effort. Of course I’m not anti-gay. I was reacting with the same kind of frustration and anger that happened here and I popped off on twitter and was taken to task. Hard. Isn’t it possible that a similar dynamic happened here, that Joan Walsh is not racist at all, but reacted in the moment? Her articles about 2012 which preceded this specific blowout were arguing against a primary, even though she expressed her own frustrations with some of the policies.

    Frankly, I’m frustrated with the policies, too. I’d like to not have to worry that Medicare and Social Security are not on the chopping block. That has nothing to do with it coming from a black president — it would be a frustration if he were green, blue or otherwise. I’m just withholding judgement until I hear more details, something that others aren’t being as quick to do.

    I also admit that I probably do have racial bias I don’t even know I have, just because I’m a white person who lacks the perspective of black folks. No matter how hard I try, I will not have their life experience or perspective. I can only imagine. Same with being gay, which is what I heard about when I was being hammered — that I couldn’t possibly know what it felt like to be shunned, rejected, ridiculed and excluded.

    They’re right. I don’t. And I don’t know how I would react in the very same circumstances. I daresay Joan may be the same way. That doesn’t make us racists, and shouting at each other isn’t going to help us learn the other’s point of view.

  • http://twitter.com/rootless_e rootless

    Whether Joan Walsh IS or IS NOT racist is something I’m not competent to judge and it doesn’t matter. What I care about is that she used a racist argument. She regularly writes as if her opinions were the opinions of “progressives” and “the base”. What both Ishmael Reed and @truthrose1 said, clearly, was “you don’t speak for us and white progressives are not the sum totality of the Democratic party.” She could easily have said, “sorry, of course I’m only speaking for me and a small bunch of overpaid upper class twits who only talk to each other”. But instead she attacked truthrose with a made up story. There are not two sides to this: one side claimed to speak for all the base and one side objected to the claim. But Walsh wanted to reframe the argument as:

    irrational angry black people (you know how emotional they are) claim to be the base and Olympian Joan Walsh has an objective point of view and RESENTS it when those terrible black extremists claim white people don’t exist.

    This is the classic form of privileged argument. The person with privilege always claims to be objective and to be offended by the emotional and irrational arguments of those without the privilege. I would be shocked if Walsh has not experienced male editors using exactly the same trick on her.

    There is no way for Walsh to make such an argument in good faith. To me it must be conscious race baiting. And look, I don’t think she can avoid it. Because if she admits that a large part of the thinking and acting base of the party does not subscribe to her theories of Obama’s big fail, the whole story deflates. Instead of “Obama has let down the base” she’s left with “upper west side liberals with nannies hate Obama”.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    So how do we get past this and get focused on the goal? That’s what worries me most.

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    I had a comment that got lost in moderation, I think, but here’s what I wrote:

    As I said on Twitter and in my post, Joan set up a straw-man and knocked it down. She mischaracterized Reed’s article; spun the Twitter debacle by cherry-picking tweets, then tried to dismiss Twitter as a medium of political discourse as silly (and note how her commenters chime in that Twitter is a venue for teenagers and idiots) even though truthrose tweeted that Twitter had finally given black people a voice.

    I wrote what I thought was a pretty measured response. She didn’t respond to that, but responded to this post which is based on the same faulty premise — that black people are claiming to be the base.

    Here we are six days later when all Joan had to do was admit the error and apologize. She still has not done so. (What’s up with *that*?)

    This is a discussion that we need to have, and it’s better to do it now while the Republicans are also in disarray, so we can figure out who wants to move forward with Obama 2012 and who doesn’t, and how to marginalize those who don’t so those aren’t the folks who are controlling the message. The only way I know how to do it is by blogging about it because unfortunately, Lawrence O’Donnell et al aren’t exactly calling my ass. (heh.)

    Seriously though, as I said on Twitter, these fools who were urging people not to vote in 2010 (Ed Schultz, ahem) are partially responsible for where we are. Yet they are the ones crying about how they Obama has disappointed his base. They are clamoring for a primary.

    Why aren’t we talking about that? Why aren’t we talking about the fact that the comment sections in KOS, FDL, and Salon read like Free Republic?

    We might have a real chance to reach voters who are freaked out by what Walker, Kasich, and Snyder are doing. If they click over to the blogs that are “progressive/liberal/whatever” blogs and see these people calling Obama weak, irrelevant, a sellout, blah blah blah, why the hell would they want to join our side? Our side is a fucking mess. I don’t even want to be on our side sometimes.

    We need to get it the fuck together. We’re blowing an opportunity by letting a bunch of ex-Republicans-turned-Democrats-turned-whatever make money by opposing every.fucking.thing.obama.does.

    It’s just common political sense.

    /not proofread.

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    Response below:

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    I started to quote you and realized I’d end up copy/pasting your whole response. The last five paragraphs of what you said? Agree 100%. 150% even.

    On comments, I will say this. There are people paid by the rw to pretend to be liberals. They troll blogs like Kos, etc. and make comments like that. Some of them aren’t even paid. they just troll. Then you get to the whole ‘free speech’ thing and where you draw the line. We struggled with this when I worked in the CNN communities ten years ago and it’s only gotten worse since then. I shudder to think what it would look like today if we were still functional.

    As to your remarks about reaching voters freaking about Walker/Kasich et al, on this I also agree wholeheartedly, and it goes to what I was saying in the post. We have got to quit fixating on Obama and start focusing on the true evil going on here. That should have been done in 2010 too, but for the fact that everyone starts getting sucked into the mainstream media meme and leaves the rest behind.

    This is what I’m worrying about….that we’ll get so focused on fighting with each other we’ll miss the real enemy.

  • http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/ Extreme Liberal

    Walsh, Greenwald, Hamsher, Uygur and others have no interest in saying anything good about President Obama. None whatsoever…hell they couldn’t even give him credit for DADT repeal, WTF.

    The real progressive movement needs to call out the “cancer” within the movement, people like Hamsher and Greenwald and Uygur and sometimes Walsh too. When I say the real progressive movement, I’m not talking about the self-appointed ones who ran to jump in front of the bullets shot by Robert Gibbs at the Professional left (so they could get some street cred with their new right-wing readers and commenters). I was amazed how many people WANTED to be the “professional left” after Gibbs said it. They were falling all over themselves to be the PL. Which shows to me that they just want clicks, money and fame.

    If they gave a shit about ANY progressive causes, they would stop destroying the only party that even comes close to promoting progressive causes, the Democratic Party.

  • Pingback: (Video) The left-center spat over Obama boiled down to one 4-minute TV fight : The Reid Report

  • http://twitter.com/rootless_e rootless

    what I think is that we have to stop thinking about people like Joan Walsh as being on our side and reach out to the larger public. But it is also important to clearly and calmly (not my forte) pushback against the damaging narrative that Walsh and others construct. How long are we going to hear about the broken Guatanamo promise and public option? That’s the topic these people want to discuss and I think we have to be loud that actual Democrats don’t give a damn about all those stupid grievances. We want to move forward.

    As ABL said
    We might have a real chance to reach voters who are freaked out by what Walker, Kasich, and Snyder are doing. If they click over to the blogs that are “progressive/liberal/whatever” blogs and see these people calling Obama weak, irrelevant, a sellout, blah blah blah, why the hell would they want to join our side? Our side is a fucking mess. I don’t even want to be on our side sometimes.

    What Walsh and Kos and Ed and Professor Snoopy do 24/7 is sell the message that the Democrats are the party of weak, betrayed, lying, ineffective, worthless people. And then they make the message even more effective with endemic racism. Pound for pound, they are as much of an impediment to real reform in America as Fox. That’s why I think your call for getting along is doomed. I don’t want to get along with someone whose agenda is to explain to the public that the President sucks and his supporters are fools. I could go to Fox for that and see better production values.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    OK.

    On a lesser point, this is an example of the kind of editorial coming from the pundit class toward Clinton… http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C12FA355D0C7A8EDDA10894DE494D81

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    After a discussion over a few specifics in the exchange that lit this all on fire, I’m updating this post to add one last thought.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    rootless, i agree with you on the reaching out to the larger public issue, but it won’t make this wound heal, in my opinion. After having the discussion with you here and on twitter, and going back again through the different exchanges, I added an update to this post which I hope clarifies things a little more.

  • http://twitter.com/allanbrauer allanbrauer

    Karoli, about online comments, you ask “where do you draw the line?”

    It’s really not a free speech issue. A blog is someone’s private property, even if they set it up as an online community. The government is not telling anyone that they can’t post mean things on someone’s blog; the community is simply setting standards. There have to be community standards about what is out of bounds, whether enforced by the blog owner or self-policed by the community.

    And at all the blogs ABL mentions, the communities are out of control, festering swamps.

    It all reminds me of Karl Popper, who coined the Paradox of Tolerance in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, written in 1945 as WWII was winding down and he, an Austrian Jew, was living in exile, having fled the Nazis.

    He said:

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

  • http://twitter.com/allanbrauer allanbrauer

    Karoli, I really appreciate what you’re trying to do here, but I remain unconvinced that Joan Walsh is reachable. It was not just Truthrose1 to whom she was dismissive that evening on Twitter: several other people, including me, attempted to call her out or reprimand her for the ugly and misdirected slam she aimed at Truthrose1. To each and every one of us, she was arrogant, flippant and dismissive of our feedback, and treated each and every one of us, regardless of our perceived race or gender, as if we were evil, virulent internet trolls, completely undeserving of a serious answer to our questions and concerns.

    I have had exchanges with quite a few nationally recognized pundits and commentators on Twitter, and many of them have been welcoming, graceful and mature in how they deal with feedback and criticism. But Joan Walsh was decidedly not like that at all. She reminded most of Roland Martin, who is a world-class jackass on Twitter.

    She may claim to recognize that primarying Obama would be a bad move, but she made a point of trashing the good people of OFA who are already gearing up for the re-election campaign, and sniffed that she would be waiting until next year to put her support behind Obama, presumably if he behaves himself and takes direction from her.

    She owes Truthrose1, ABL and the rest of us a huge apology and even more, she owes the readers of Salon and viewers of MSNBC a major attitude adjustment. And I am not holding my breath that either will be forthcoming.

    I will be working AROUND Ms. Walsh from now on, ignoring her, and focusing on rallying the president’s actual allies for 2012.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Rootless. The Cenks, Joan Walsh’s, Ed’s and Rachel’s will do their dirt regardless of what anyone says. They are not who they claim, they are frauds and should be treated as such.

    They don’t speak for me. They are not helping and need to be called out for their lies.
    I read Joan Walsh’s article and did not like the fact she wrote she RESENTED Blacks because we(Blacks) were going around saying we were the base. ????????
    The majority of “progressives” who get on TV to speak about PBO are majority white and I swear they are all knowing about the BASE of the Dem party. We all know that the “liberal, progressive” cable news channel has an all white lineup at night. Black issues are not covered and for the most part ignored.
    The Black people who get a chance to speak about PBO are required to put on their tap shoes and do a jig for the white host. It is disgusting to watch but we all have to make a living.
    The amount of blatant racism that is going on in this country is disgusting. I want PBO to win in 2012. I will do my part on twitter on blogs etc to call out what I see as racist/prejudiced behavior.
    btw I wanted to give an example of how the term “the base” is used by “progressive media”
    Who exactly is Rachel talking about? Is she talking about the Black part of the base? The union part of the base? I think this is a good example of how careless the term is being used.
    DID OBAMA REALLY ABANDON THE BASE ? RACHEL MADDOW SPEAKS WITH MEREDITH VIEIRA ON THE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4eTV-GV9XU

    Karoli u are nice to try to bridge this gap. It is what it is. All we can do is move on and do what we do.
    Sorry for the rambling but I just really got home.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Allan,

    I understand (and frequently make) your argument. But many (and CNN was one) allowed all speech up to a point rather than squelch it. I don’t necessarily think wingnuts and bigots deserve that kind of mic, but they felt that the spectre of censorship was too onerous to go the other way.

    On the other hand, now you can require a facebook login to go with a comment, as if that will somehow make a difference. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen yet, but many sites are using them, as if using a Facebook ID suddenly guarantees a real person behind the comment.

    I’m not defending the policy. I am saying that it’s a common one, even on private sites.

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    thanks for that update Karoli.

  • Anonymous

    Karoli-
    You must say something on this. As must ABL and all the rest of the thoughtful exchanges conatined in your comments. Being white doesn’t exclude younfrom the conversation. Refusing to listen or admit there’s a perspective you don’t have, ala Ms. walsh, does exclude someone because it means they’re not listening, period.
    We, progressives and democrats, of all stripes need to have this exact coversation… And it shouldn’t be moderated by Ed or Joan or Chris Matthews. It needs to be moderated by people whose egos don’t plug their ears. People like the ones in this conversation.
    Reynaldo

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    I’ve said plenty…and hope the conversation will continue. I just need to step out of this conversation and let others participate.

  • http://twitter.com/allanbrauer allanbrauer

    Excellent clip, truthrose!

    Who is this “base” of whom Rachel speaks with such assurance? I busted my ass working to get Obama elected, and I do not see myself reflected in one single sentence she uttered.

  • Anonymous

    “the problem with punditry: It’s delivered from a place that doesn’t always understand those one is speaking for…”

    Or…punditry thinks it DOES speak for the base, all of it. It’s misidentified the base to mean a group of hyper-engaged people whose jobs depend on there being controversy, so that they can be hired to talk about the controversy. If, in the talking, they manage to make the controversy bigger, YAY! More talking head segments, more eyes on their publications (huffpo, salon, etc). If they manage to make THEMSELVES the controversy, it’s ultimate win. (See: She Who I Will Not Name)

    Maybe, somewhere in their hearts, and in their past, their goal was to actually further progressive goals. Now, it’s more about furthering themselves. But they’ve forgotten that the *actual* base is all those people out there who don’t have a platform, who don’t go on TV, and who are far more interested in the meat-and-potatoes issues than “did Boehner kick the President’s butt?”

  • Anonymous

    Every time I mention on twitter that I’m turning the channel from MSNBC when Ed comes on, some fan of his gets in my face. When I bring up the “told people to not vote” thing, I get apologists.

    “We’re blowing an opportunity by letting a bunch of ex-Republicans-turned-Democrats-turned-whatever make money by opposing every.fucking.thing.obama.does.”

    amen. I’ll c/p from what I said to Karoli above:

    Or…punditry thinks it DOES speak for the base, all of it. It’s misidentified the base to mean a group of hyper-engaged people whose jobs depend on there being controversy, so that they can be hired to talk about the controversy. If, in the talking, they manage to make the controversy bigger, YAY! More talking head segments, more eyes on their publications (huffpo, salon, etc). If they manage to make THEMSELVES the controversy, it’s ultimate win. (See: She Who I Will Not Name)

    Maybe, somewhere in their hearts, and in their past, their goal was to actually further progressive goals. Now, it’s more about furthering themselves. But they’ve forgotten that the *actual* base is all those people out there who don’t have a platform, who don’t go on TV, and who are far more interested in the meat-and-potatoes issues than “did Boehner kick the President’s butt?”

  • Pingback: Shut up and listen for a change!

  • Pingback: Privilege and Paternalism: Talking Cross-Culturally | Angry Black Lady Chronicles

Previous post:

Next post: