I think he went gay more for pay than for votes. Remember this gay marriage reversal was announced the day prior to raising $15 million with George Clooney and the hollywood liberal elite. But you're right that it was a play for that youth vote -- they think this makes him "cooler" ... which is just sad and pathetic that Americans would vote for a President based on how cool he is perceived to be. I also believe that deep down, Obama does in fact sympathize with gays, and quite possibly has a history of bisexuality himself. There are many clues about his past that point to this, most notably his relationship with Donald Young and some of his Pakistani and Arab "mentors".
I'm pretty sure you're right about the PE reference, but it still doesn't seem like the title the author would choose. I'm just sad that it makes a bunch of people assume what the article is about (e.g. "white people only criticize Obama because he's (half) black!") when they could actually learn a lot from the dense historical references within. But I cannot for the life of me figure out what I *would* title it. And now I'm seeing the ironic twist that the titular "fear" is actually about Obama's own... of being seen as a black president or acting in any way that would reinforce memes or aggravate cultural scabs. If that's what they wanted, they should have called it "the fears of our black president," IMO. Readers turned away by the title would also miss the really interesting point that the black community is largely just as sick of racial tension as the white community and would like as much as anyone to just move on already from the standard merry-go-rounds of affirmative action, etc. Good luck, as this very board illustrates perfectly. Agree with your last general point, and as the article sets it out: black people can express plenty of anger, (e.g. PE) as long as they aren't in a position of power. Well, even then PE caught plenty of heat.
Obama doesn't seem like a cool dude to me. Maybe back in 2008 he did, but now he just comes across as an arrogant jerk. And the type who is never willing to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Everything is always someone else's fault. I'm not saying I think Romney seems like a likable guy, just that I can see why people would dislike Obama.
Yeah, I agree with this. Obama often comes across as aloof and professorial. I think the professorial part is very natural and part of who he is. It's a balancing act that few do well, however. We have a lot of very serious national problems, so if he was smiling a lot more and singing more Al Green, etc, oh boy would you hear a heap of criticism about that too. Bush II tried a lot of humor and down-to-earthiness, which was genuine, I thought, but it added a lot to the "buffoon" image for a lot of people.
Just because Obama defenders continue to deny the validity of his "political views" that are rubbing people the wrong way, doesn't mean that some of the serious conservative posters on here haven't been pointing them out. The fact that Obama hasn't raised taxes yet doesn't change the fact that 2013 is the year the investment surcharge in the ACA hits, at the same time he wants to end the Bush cuts for those making more than $250k, and raise capital gains and dividend taxes, and institute the Buffet rule. That's a massive tax increase that Obama has promised to deliver. I doubt Bob Dole would have had his NLRB attacking Boeing for having the audacity to open a new factory in a different state than the one where they have an existing factory (without laying off any employees in the old factory). I doubt Bob Dole would have had his HHS Secretary forcing Catholic institutions to pay for their employees birth control and abortions. And FYI, I say this as someone who voted for Obama. I'm not some basso clone.
The tax increases and Buffet rule is something most Americans favor. And it won't effect the taxes(except to lower them which is also part of that plan) of almost every single citizen including those that complain about them at the tea party rallies. He's been up front about wanting to raise the taxes of those that can afford it in order to help curb the deficit, which is something almost everyone is concerned about. Why only cut services which makes all the sacrifice come on the part of the lower and middle classes. Shouldn't the wealthy also make some sacrifices? History has shown us prosperity is possible with higher tax rates for the wealthy and in capital gains etc.
I wasn't giving an opinion about Obama's proposed tax increases one way or the other. I was merely pointing out that you can't say Obama is against tax increases citing the fact that he hasn't raised them in his 3+ years because that is completely ignoring the fact that he is promising to dramatically raise taxes on a small percentage of the population if re-elected. And don't give me any crap about Obama proposing raising taxes on "those that can afford it to help curb the deficit." That's complete crap. You're not going to make any significant dent on the deficit only by increasing taxes on the wealthy, we're all going to have to pay up. He's doing it for the sake of his idea of "fairness." It's as absurd as when Republicans try to cut funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood and claim it's about the deficit (while at the same time pumping that money into defense and decreasing taxes on high incomes).
Obama hasn't proposed "only" cutting taxes. He's already cut money out of Medicare, and has proposed more cuts including cuts to Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that benefit the lower and middle class citizens. And in fact Obama's rate of cuts vs. tax increases was 3 to 1 in favor of spending cuts over tax increases. The problem is when people misrepresent what Obama has proposed when trying to make an argument. Obama hasn't proposed only increasing taxes. He's also proposed greater spending cuts. It's also not entirely open to make an argument that Obama is in favor of tax increases when it will only increase taxes on a tiny percentage of Americans. It is fair to point out that he has only cut taxes thus far, and will cut taxes again for the middle class while increase them for the top percentages of money earners.
I find this argument amusing. The increase in taxes on the wealthy would generate approximately $100B per year, or solve 10% of the budget deficit by itself (another 30-40% will theoretically be solved through economic growth). Can you name any one other proposal out there that will do more to cut the deficit over the next 10 years?
Your $100B per year is a factor of about 3-4 higher than what I've been reading elsewhere, which is why I said it was an insignificant number. I haven't heard of a single policy proposal that would cut more from the deficit over the next 10 years, but here is one: let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. More than three-quarters of the "cost" of the cuts is on income below $250k.
The estimate from expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is $1 trillion over 10 years, 10% of the actual deficit or about 20% of the estimated structural deficit. As far as your proposal - sure, that would work. But no one has proposed that, so when looking at GOP vs Dem ideas for reducing the deficit, I don't see where that fits in.
My apologies to the OP for my part in this: Provocative and thoughtful article, so seriously, thanks again.
That stood out to me, as well. This is a remarkable read, and I'm grateful to rimbaud for posting it. I'd have missed it, otherwise. Coates covers a huge amount of territory in what is really a short article. I hope people here take a few minutes to read it.
I hope cml reads through the article and gives his 2 cents. I do remember when during the "Wright scandal" the O campaign was desperately trying not to connect Obama with the "angry black man". When looking inward, I didn't realize that expectation would continue to persist even when he's the Commander in Chief in the highest office of the land. There are many times when I want to see his conviction and passion when using the pulpit, but in this era of twisted contexts and soundbyte gotchas, I wonder if I could slowly sway and consider him too angry and vindictive enough to look after my "American" interests. Regardless, I'm still deeply disappointed in what the President has done wrt civil liberties in privacy, rights reserved from law enforcement, streamlined rendition and execution orders, and a laundry list of status quo disappointments that a change minded individual would attempt to address. The sad part is that there are probably a good list of executive level corrections from the Bush era that the admin is reluctant to talk about, lest the opposition jumps on the opportunity to harp against it. Your derail isn't as bad as the first one...by far.
I agree wholeheartedly with this post, and have been very disappointed in the Obama administration in the areas you've mentioned. I too was shocked that the focus on not talking about racial issues would continue to the extreme that they have.
Race baiting and the election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/27/race-and-the-2012-election/
Yeah, that is his most important role. Other than that Obama sadly is a place holder who keeps things from getting worse a bit slower. It is unfortunate that we have the first black president at a time when the white working class especailly males has been so decimated by 30 plus years deindustrialization. This suffering feeds into their racism which is otherwise decreasing. The African American working class has also been greatly affected, but at least they have recorded some gains in civil rights.
