Now that he is has a doctorate, do you think the right will listen more closely to Dr. Obama? Nahhhhhh!
Jerry, in their world, this confirms his intellectual, out of touch, snobbery.
The word is "arrogance."
This was great. I loved his entire speech.. Thanks for posting it Leslie. Now if only people will follow through.
Thanks for posting.An activist federal government ended slavery and Jim Crow, passed Title IX, established our national park system and the EPA (which was Nixon), provided Pell grants for higher education, enacted Medicare and Medicaid, ended old age poverty through Social Security, and prevailed in WW2. The United States would be a backwater without it.
TN said: "The word is "arrogance."Yes. A word devoid of any racial contect when used on Presidents and politicians due to the fact that it is used extensively to refer to white politicians.If there's anything racial here, it is implying that Obama is to get some sort of special treatment because of his skin color and to not be called arrogant just like all the other white politicians are.
I take it that dmarks comment is a failed attempt at humor.According to dmarks' logic no word other than an ethnic slur can have racist implications, regardless of the context in which it is used. Aside from reflecting a fragile grasp of the nature of the English language, it wouldn't pass the laugh test in Logic 101.Look, it's not my fault that the long conservative record on race is miserable. Nor is it my fault that Fox News, the right-wing media, and Republican party have relentlessly portrayed President Obama as some kind of threatening un-American Other. Given that context -- a word the meaning of which seems to elude dmarks at every turn -- no, conservatives can't call Obama arrogant without invoking a racial context. It's their own doing.
dmarks: Race hadn't been mentioned until you brought it up.
K, what dmarks chooses to ignore is that the word arrogance is a code word for uppity. Having grown up in the South, I can say I have never hear THAT word applied to a white person.
I'm sorry, but I am getting really tired of this whole, both sides are doing it thing. I think the only reason the both sides are doing it argument is being used, is so we don't offend the delicate sensibilities of the angry Teabagistani citizens. Not buying it and I wish they would just stop doing it. That is just one persons opinion, so flame away if you must, but I won't be changing my mind any time soon on those thoughts.
Frodo is back, and is he ever pissed? However, it is a more restrained pissed, and he is doing his best to lower the decibels.
what a great speech! You need to visit Linda, Leslie. She picked apart his speech in Michigan and turned it into dogfood. I actually laughed out loud!!
Jess: After nearly two years of being witness to racial slurs and vitriol directed at Obama and at progressives, I don't see why we should just shut up and take it. I prefer civility but when the opposition acts like animals, I don't know why we should always be expected to act like ladies and gentlemen.Welcome back Frodo. I think a lot of us are pissed.
Thanks, Sue. I prefer not going to her blog. I didn't like what she ever said on yours, so why seek her out? Life is much more pleasant without her.
This comment has been removed by the author.
K said: "According to dmarks' logic no word other than an ethnic slur can have racist implications"That's not my logic at all. Noose references and the uppity word and other supposedly non-racial words easily have racial implications, because they are hardly used for whites at all."Aside from reflecting a fragile grasp of the nature of the English language, it wouldn't pass the laugh test in Logic 101."That is a perfect description of the illogic of the idea that it is somehow racist for people to have called Obama "arrogant" hundreds of thousands of times right after Bush was called "arrogant" hundreds of thousands of times.The word "arrogant", in contrast, is used in an extremely common fashion for whites as well as blacks.tnlib: "dmarks: Race hadn't been mentioned until you brought it up."Actually, it had. You are being quite dishonest here; kind of a first. I've not known you to be intentionally deceptive. The fact is that you have written extensively on the word "arrogant" as a race word in your own blog, here.Jaded: I choose to ignore nothing. The word "arrogant" is used in a very common fashion for white politicians. A hint: it's a code-word for arrogant."Having grown up in the South, I can say I have never hear THAT word applied to a white person."It's not my fault if you go through life deaf and blind. Now google arrogant obama vs arrogant bush and you will see how it works out in the real world.Arrogant Hillary also comes up with more hits than these two combined. The first hit is "Hillary is an arrogant and viscious liberal". Whether or not we agree with the sentiment, it is equally racist (that is, not at all) to refer to Obama, Hillary, or the ol Bush dude as "arrogant".I reserve my right to treat any President or politician the same as any other, and I reserve my right to object when someone conjures racism out of thin air.
dmarks: I think it is obvious to most that I'm talking about the comments re this post only.
So, is your use of the word "arrogance" in quotes intended to be completely devoid of the race issue some have attached to the word?
I'm puzzled as to why dmarks keeps citing Google as proof of his point when he has already admitted that it doesn't hold water.I google "arrogant Bush" and get 1,930,000 hits.I google "arrogant Obama" and get 1,800,000 hits.As I understand dmarks, the reason that this is an apples-to-apples comparison is that the number of references to Bush doesn't reflect the true number because his time in office goes back farther and references that were there have been dropped. Fair enough.Only here's the problem: 1.93 million references across an eight-year presidency averages 20,100 references per month. 1.8 million references across a 15-month presidency averages 120,000 a month.dmarks would have us believe that the references to Bush have eroded at a rate of 100,000/month, but he provides no quantitative evidence for this other than his opinion that it must have happened.So, we're left with comparing what one person thinks with what we can see with our two eyes. Sorry, dmarks, but until you can demonstrate with actual evidence that the drop rate of "arrogant Bush" averages 100,000/mo across eight years, your own argument comes a lot closer to proving my point than yours.
As for the rest, the argument is simple enough:Today, no one can use words like "uppity," so Republicans and the right-wing media substitute words like "arrogant" to appeal to a racial prejudice that many conservatives feel but are socially proscribed from saying.If someone doesn't want to believe that, well, this is America and that's their right. But that's really what the position comes down to: I don't believe there's racial prejudice among conservatives. Of course, that person probably also believes that Hans Christian Anderson wrote non-fiction.