Congresswoman Maxine Waters, speaking at a Congressional Black Caucus-sponsored job fair in Detroit yesterday, said that she was reluctant to go after Obama on policy issues, given the fact that he’s our first black President, but that she’s ready to demand more of him on behalf of the black community, if the black community is ready to have her do it.
I couldn’t quite make out every word, but here’s part of the transcript:
“I tell you this, the Congressional Black Caucus loves the President too. We’re supportive of the President… But we’re getting tired. We want to give the President every opportunity to show what he can do, and what he’s prepared to lead on. We want to give him every opportunity, but our people are… Unemployment is unconscionable. (And) we don’t know what the strategy is. We don’t know why on this trip he’s now on around the United States, he’s not (stopping at) any black communities. We don’t know that. All I’m saying to you is that we’re politicians. We’re elected officials. We’re trying to do the right thing, and the best thing. When you tell us that it’s time to let go, we’ll let go.”
This was followed by several in the audience yelling, “Let Go!”
It’s worth noting that African American unemployment is now over 16%.
52 Comments
We don’t have the right wing noise machine; that owns the airwaves to convey to the US; all what Obama has achieved.
He has achieved A LOT!!!!
That’s obvious.
Watching Laughing.
Marian Wright Edelman of the children’s Defense Fund is supporting the president. She has reported that he is very supportive of children in general and in need and children of color far outnumber white children when it comes to needs. I think Maxine can ask and should but she needs to ask the the right…literally and good luck with that
I like that Waters is coming right out and saying that they’ve given him a pass for the past two years based solely upon his skin color.
That was sarcasm. I don’t really like it at all.
And here’s some more sarcasm.
I also like how now she’s shifting the blame back to the people, saying that she would have gone after the President aggressively on the things that matter to her constituents, but that they, up until now, didn’t want her to. You see, it’s the fault of black people that the Black Caucus sat on their hands for two years, as the wealth in this country was drained by the wealthy whites in the top 1%.
Most of the issues that are affecting the Black community are the same issues that are affecting all Americans — but often in a more concentrated way.
Although I’m not African-American, I can imagine the mixed feelings many might be feeling when they contrast their (understandable and justifiable) pride in having a Black President — with the fact that, as measured by a variety of indicators (un- and under-employment, home ownership, family net worth, etc.) the quality of life for vast numbers of African-Americans has declined more rapidly than for practically any other group since the 2008 financial collapse.
At the risk of repeating myself (again) … For the sake of ALL Americans, I really hope the President will be much more forceful in the coming weeks and months in proposing and fighting for an agenda designed to create more and better jobs, deal effectively with the mortgage/foreclosure crisis to help families keep their homes, protect the integrity key social safety-net programs, and invest in education, infrastructure, public transit, green energy etc.
In other words … “Let’s Go!”
I didn’t mention it earlier, but this is a good thing. Obama needs to hear that the base is shifting below his feet, that he’s ignored them for far too long, and they’re beginning to push back. Hopefully he takes the warning of Maxine Waters to heart. I heard him on the television today, and he’s still talking about Buffet’s quote about how we’ve taken it easy on Billionaires for far too long. Maybe, if he says it enough, he’ll actually act on it.
Also, perhaps somewhat off topic … or maybe not … the Detroit News reported today that:
* 23 percent of Michigan children were living in poverty in 2009 — a 64 percent increase in one decade, and a number that is almost certainly higher today.
* 36 percent of Michigan children are living in families in which neither parent has a full-time, year-round job — a higher number than in 46 other states.
* When Michigan’s new state’s new 48-month welfare limit law goes into effect Oct. 1, about 12,600 families are expected to be thrown off the rolls, including 25,000 to 35,000 children.
http://detnews.com/article/20110817/METRO/108170383/Report–36–of-Michigan-kids-live-in-jobless-households
Reposted from commenter Tom an the Washington monthly:
Tom on August 11, 2011 10:54 AM:
The predominately white progressive intelligentsia don’t see Obama clearly because of our racial blind spot. We don’t see the role of race in how he seems to understand himself and how other perceive him.
First of all, we think that he understands himself as one of us. A progressive activist, heir to the radical and New Left movements most of us were raised in. He is not; I think that he understands himself (and certainly his real base understands him) as the first African American President. We’re thinking Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. We should be thinking about Harold Washington, the first African American mayor of Chicago. Washington was elected and immediately faced a solid wall of opposition from most white aldermen in the city. Washington understood his role as breaking down that wall of opposition and assembling a governing majority, which he finally did after his re-election. Unfortunately, he died shortly thereafter. By the way, one of Washington’s political strategists was David Axelrod.
How does Obama break the iron unity of the GOP opposition to assemble a governing majority in the US Congress?
If we progressives were not blinded by our own assumption that our history is the only history, we might see how Obama may be seeing his situation.
White progressives often think that African American elected officials are politically naive. We will far more credit to Cornel West, who has never been elected to anything, than to an elected state senator, or even the President of the United States. We think that Obama does not understand the nature of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell or Eric Cantor, as though he has not sat across the table from them. He doesn’t understand how mean they are, we think.
Obama acts entirely within the tradition of mainstream African American political strategy and tactics. The epitome of that tradition was the non-violence of the Civil Rights Movement, but goes back much further in time. It recognizes the inequality of power between whites and blacks. Number one: maintain your dignity. Number two: call your adversaries to the highest principles they hold. Number three: Seize the moral high ground and Number four: Win by winning over your adversaries, by revealing the contradiction between their own ideals and their actions. It is one way that a oppressed people struggle.
Obama has taken a seat at the negotiating table and said “There is no reason why we cannot work out solutions to our problems by acting like responsible adults. That is what people expect us to do and that is why we have entered into public service.” That is the moral high ground.
Honestly, I have been reminded more than once in the last few months of those brave college students sitting in at a Woolworth’s lunch counter, back in the day. Obama sits at that table, like they did at the counter. Boehner and McConnell and Cantor clown around, mugging for the camera, competing to ritually humiliate Obama, to dump ketchup on his head.
I don’t think those students got their sandwiches the first day, but they won in the end.
Obama is winning. Democrats are uniting behind him, although some white progressives think that they could do the job better. Independents are flocking to him. Even some Republicans are getting disgusted with their Washington leaders. Obama is not telling us about lack of seriousness of the Congressional GOP; he is showing us the vivid contrast between what we expect of our leaders and their behavior. The last two and half years have been a revelation of the essential conflicts in our society and politics.
If white progressives understood much about the politics of the African American struggle in the United States, we would see Obama in the context of that struggle and understand him better. And you don’t have to be African American to know something about the history of the African American struggle. The books and the testimony is there. It’s not all freedom songs. But you have to be convinced that it is something that can teach you something you don’t already know.
Commenter Tom is fucking deep. I appreciate this very much. Thanks, Dragon.
I agree, commenter Tom has a most excellent post.
Tom makes interesting points, even if I don’t completely buy them. The presidents failure to push for a large enough stimulus, or a jobs bill was seen as a mistake by every sane economist at the time. It will probably rank as his biggest mistake, regardless of the outcome of the re-election bid. Still, it has to be said that Maxine Waters is on pretty shaky ground with pointing the finger at anyone for anything. I think she sort of squeaked by on the ethics investigation that was targeting her, but her financial connections were pretty stinky.
Tom is stretching in his comparisons and his arbitrary list of civil rights era values (“maintain your dignity” etc) sound good but connecting them with Obama is about as deep as connecting Grover Cleveland with Teddy Roosevelt because they both had mustaches. (Obama wore boxers and so did MLK! Tightey whitey progressive just don’t get what he’s doing!)
but here’s another possible list of MLK era values:
1) Reject all forms racism and oppression
2) Yield no ground to your oppressors
3) Breaking unjust laws is a moral act
4) There is no progress without resistance
(If you don’t like my list, do like Tom and invent your own. Just don’t translate the values of civil rights movement into a trite “we just want to get along” narrative.)
If you want to understand the “values of the civil rights movement” look at what the civil rights leaders did when they gained elected office. No longer oppressed, they slapped “motherfucker in charge” on their desks and used the backbone that won them rights.
I want to go on a bit about Tom’s lumping of Carter with “rush to the center Clinton,” but I’ll back off referring to Obama as Clinton 2.0… Instead, consider Tom’s biggest omission. He uses the civil right’s value of “non-violence” but fails to follow it with “resistance.” Huh?
That’s like saying “ice” without “cream.” It ain’t the same thing.
The civil rights movement was not primarily about “non-violence” it was about “resistance.” Non-violent is the adjective, resistance is the noun. That’s a point Tom (and Obama) seems to neglect.
From an old (8/6/08 )NY Times article (Is Obama the End of Black Politics?):
This newly emerging class of black politicians, however, men (and a few women) closer in age to Obama and Jesse Jr., seek a broader political brief. Comfortable inside the establishment, bred at universities rather than seminaries, they are just as likely to see themselves as ambassadors to the black community as they are to see themselves as spokesmen for it, which often means extolling middle-class values in urban neighborhoods, as Obama did on Father’s Day. Their ambitions range well beyond safely black seats.
I’m with the Caring Parent on this one. One other thing I might add – the early civil rights leaders paid their dues and did the heavy lifting. The only dues paid by Obama were to his masters on Wall Street. Anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves – take off the Lefty glasses and you wil see someone who is nothing more than a silver tongued tool who never had any intent to ‘change’ anything.
No one else seems to be doing so, so why not. It doesn’t really matter what base way we separate ourselves. We’re all getting screwed. So if one group wants to focus on the idea that that they have more of a claim over our leader because they share a characteristic with him and that is what makes them demand more, I’m all for it.
I’m pretty sure that the president has no power over the job market other than rhetoric, which with $1.50 would get you a cup of coffee.
Unless I’m missing the sarcasm in some of the responses… seriously? I’ve always thought of MM readers as mature enough to have run into the cookie-cutter “we white people are terrible and evil except for me because I’m the one pointing it out” holier-than-thou liberal racism.
It boils down to Tom being desperate for attention, but if we take his blather at face value, he’s more racist than any of his ‘blind spot’ white progressive friends. He’s just as happy to separate the world by one characteristic and claim not only that We can never understand Them, but to claim that Them are incapable of operating under any direction other than their Themness.
You don’t have to be black, male, straight, over 20, from Hawaii, like basketball, have kids, or share any other characteristic with Obama to see that he hasn’t done shit. Having grown up with the struggles that Tom is apparently intensely jealous of/guilty for not having suffered wouldn’t expose the secret codex of Obama Paradise.
Maybe I’ve misread the general population of ‘white progressives’ (again, race is all that defines us!) by watching too much Bill Maher, but I don’t believe they “think that African American elected officials are politically naive.” They think that this elected official who happens to be black is exactly as politically corrupt and/or flaccid as all other politicians and/or democrats.
What depresses me most is that Tom’s flavor of guiltsterbation is as harmful to democracy as any atrocity committed by the far right. I shouldn’t have to have someone who looks exactly like me in office to feel represented. I especially shouldn’t feel pride in admitting that’s what I think.
Tom seems desperate for acceptance and recognition. Perhaps Daddy was disappointed in Tom’s performance at the polka competition or something.
i knew i agreed with someone…
Man, the Obama hasn’t done shit attitude gets old fast. Seriously? That’s just plain tantrumming…
Some folks on this blog (not to mention many leading economists and national commentators — and now, even members of the Congressional Black Caucus) are/have been trying to point out that President Obama and the Democratic leadership’s failure to take bold action to fix this economy and create jobs is setting him (and us) up for a Democratic electoral disaster in 2012 — yet there are still many, like Olivia, who are content to attack the messenger, rather than face reality– preferring to refer to label anything other than unquestioning allegiance as “tantrumming.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149042/New-Low-Approve-Obama-Economy.aspx
Some folks on this blog seem to want to create the very disaster they warn about. They continue to echo the 24 hour news cycle. Keep kicking someone hard and loud enough and the negative rhetoric keeps people home from voting (or worse) and then once again the right wins. Been there and done that my whole fucking life, no thanks. I have no doubt about who I am for and against and I am stickin. I wouldn’t call disagreement tantrums, but they do rate as ongoing rants that do ongoing damage. Just my point of view and to each her own.
Some folks on this blog are hoping — perhaps against hope — that if enough people make enough noise, President Obama still might have time to “course correct” his administration by supporting policies designed to help the 99% of Americans who are not CEOs or Wall Street hedge-fund managers, thereby inspiring confidence in his leadership, and helping him — and Democrats down all the way down the ticket — in the 2012 elections.
Tom said everything that mattered and did comprehensively!
Thank you dragon
Glen, I think you meant Maria, not Olivia. She sees tantrums where people disagree with her. And is a relentless scold.
I don’t think anyone was saying, “Here’s what I think that black folks should do…..” I get the sense from some of the people leaving comments, however, that that’s what they’re hearing. All that was stated is the fact that Waters said that she was getting tired of waiting for Obama to articulate a clear plan for America’s ever growing underclass. She brought race into it when she mentioned that Obama wasn’t visiting any black communities, but I don’t think it needs to be about race. It’s about class.
Sorry, Olivia!
Obama acts like the worst kind of politician — a punk who’d rather betray his allies (base), in hopes of getting a better deal from the enemies of his base. That kind of politics wouldn’t get a city councilman reelected, so why he thinks it’ll work for him as president with 10% plus unemployment.
I fully agree with the complex but obvious point that Obama has unique liabilities and advantages as the first Black president. But the political facts remains that, if you don’t do some things, real and major, for your base when the economy is tough, then your base isn’t likely to be that strongly in favor of you. Maybe working class voters should be for Obama: but his shortcomings as president alienate these voters and practically hand them over to Tea party types.
Obama may have learned too well the David Axelrod blueprint of how to make a man like Harold Washington a viable mayoral candidate: Avoiding fights in which you seem “unreasonable,” never being the Black man who’s “angry,” which does turn off lots of white voters. That approach worked at getting a fair number of Blacks elected mayor around the country, and it was good for Obama’s campaign in ’08.
But American voters, historically, have liked presidents who get into fights and fight hard for the “common man,” Joe Sixpack, the Average Guy, and the working moms who drive kids to their games. Obama, rightly or wrongly, as president seems too eager to avoid the fights. So much of his base is quickly becoming something other than his base. This is why he went, this week, t Iowa, Wis., and Ill., of all places.
He should dump Axelrod and get advisers who like a good fight, people who realize that you only ever get in American politics what you’re willing and able to fight for. He’s got to show himself not to be a punk, if we have a chance of reelecting him.
By election day, how many hundreds of thousands of families will have lost their homes to foreclosure, with the president doing nothing to stop that outrage born of abusive, dishonest banks? He ducked that fight, and he could have won it, hands down. He’s a punk.
Well, good luck with not supporting Obama. An angry strongman may be just what people want, and a good fight is what people are looking for. Sounds like a plan
Basically it is like this…either we band together or we lose together. Solidarity forever isn’t just a sentiment…it is a way to win. And why is it when a women speaks her mind she is a scold…but a man rants on and on and he is muse? Seems sexist
Maria, instead of “shit getting old” and “good luck with tantrums,” it might be informative for us if you took a tiny step beyond talk radio self assurance/attack mode and, um, gave a few examples of the progressive accomplishments of the Obama Administration and how they exemplify the “passive values” of the civil rights movement.
Your posts come off as a little, well, Tea Partyish in content.
See Glen S. for one sample of intelligent dialogue.
Funny caring parent…suddenly everyone is piling on Maria…And such continuous garbage is printed here regularly, and enjoyed and added onto…why pick on her few opinions so? And I have read the very long list of Obama accomplishments (and growing) many times and so have all of you…
as a woman, i’m not really interested in defending maria’s tendency to scold. seems like bullshit to me.
From Time:
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/19/maxine-waters-wants-blacks-back-in-the-conversation/#ixzz1VUF295O5
I am sure Maria is quite able to defend herself with any help from you or I kjc
Pshaw on scold/skōld/!
Verb: Remonstrate with or rebuke (someone) angrily.
Noun: A woman who nags or grumbles constantly.
Sexist, pejorative terminology for sure…just sayin
Just because it can be used that way doesn’t mean I meant it that way.
And I’m certainly not defending Maria. I disagree with everything she says and her attitude to boot.
and wetdolphinmissile, my dictionary for the noun shows the first meaning as one who scolds persistently—certainly my intention. watch the accusations you throw around. they’re lame as hell. and as a woman, i resent you playing the sexist card.
(though i assume you accuse me of sexism in order to defend Maria, which i thought she didn’t need…)
for a bunch of people who claim everyone needs to come together, you guys really understand anyone’s side but your own. It’s ok to accuse people of tantrums and rants, but not of scolding? interesting.
*don’t understand
one more thing: are you aware that the verb “rant”, your description of those critiquing Obama, can be defined as “to scold vehemently”? That’s even the second meaning—your favorite.
*don’t understand
Ah, the story of your life, you miserable fucking wretch. Maybe you should try coming up with one original thought instead of being glen’s personal cheerleader, I’m sure she can defend herself fine without you.
The real world is a little more complicated than Farmville.
P.s. It’s Oliva.
I don’t get the hostility. You people, as much as I love you, confuse the hell out of me. As far as I can tell, with the exception of EOS, Tater and Designated Republican, we are pretty much all on the same side, right?
Mark, if the “side” you’re referring to is Democrat or Republican, boxers or briefs, Velcro or laces, we probably are on the same side. Some of us are beginning to think though, that Democrat/Republican ares two sides of the same coin. And we think life isn’t as two faced as a coin.
While I’m not near the side of Bachmann. I am not on the side of a snide “Well, good luck with not supporting Obama” fall in line sentiment.
There may be two sides to every coin. But, despite what the alternating faces on coins may say, your readers are not coins. We are, at least, a die.
Sorry for any hostilities, I tend to get heated with sexist language. Something about the word “scold” just got under my skin. kjc…you seem really angry beyond the argument too! And yes I think we are all pretty close to the same side but you know in Ypsi there are all these subgroups…Young, Old, Has been, Never will be’s, the SNIDE, the too cool for you’s and the I stand with my peeps no matter what group, it goes on and on. When it comes to presidential politics, Obama and the “race card”, the stakes are high and only one wins. And it will be a republican (tea or not) or a democrat. Pick one…
This morning, President Obama delivered his weekly address:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address
In it, President Obama once again blames “Washington” and “Congress” (but, of course, not Republicans) for many of the problems facing the nation, and proposing a modest four-point plan to help create jobs, consisting of:
* Payroll tax cuts
* Infrastructure spending
* Matching returning vets to jobs
* Passing trade deals
So, obviously, I’m 100% with the President on the idea of more infrastructure spending — so kudos to him on that. And, I appreciate the idea of helping to match returning vets with jobs … however, I don’t see how that helps to create more jobs, or to help the millions of (non-vets) who are also out of work.
On the other hand, I’m not thrilled that one of President Obama’s plans for “job creation” is to propose additional payroll tax cuts (which, granted, might provide a modest boost to those already working, but does very little to help the millions who are un- or under-employed.) Likewise, if what he’s proposing is anything like the current Obama-inspired payroll tax “holiday” — it also has the negative effect of driving down Social Security taxes — thus accelerating the decline of the Social Security trust fund, and adding pressure to the calls for additional “entitlement reform.”
As for his proposal for more so-called “free trade” agreements to provide a catalyst for job creation — I think all of us who live here in Michigan (and especially Metro Detroit) can attest to what a terrible deal this has been for countless workers — as we’ve experienced a three-decade long flow of good-paying manufacturing and other jobs to countries that offer no basic labor protections, substantially lower wages and benefits, and often have little health, safety or environmental regulations.
If, amidst the greatest job losses and worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this is the best our supposedly-Democratic President has to offer — then I’m with Caring Parent: Maybe the time has come for another toss of the coin, another roll of the dice, or better yet — a New Deal.
Everyone has their opinion, and if kjc wants to call me a scold, so be it. I don’t really care. Sometimes I really am, or as I like to think, I’ve been through the school of hard knocks myself. The first forty years of your life will get you ready for the second forty.
For example, when Glen S. points out that there should be some kind of program to keep people in houses, there needs to be a fact check, if you can’t afford it, you can’t afford, and there’s no disgrace in living within your means. That doesn’t mean I condone/want homelessness, it means there are tides to a person’s life. Many houses were sold during the bubble, they were never really worth the loans amount, loans were made to people who could never really pay them off, and people took out loans figuring the market how nowhere to go but up. Not so, and having the government support these inflated figures just ultimately means the banks take the money, people become house poor to live in house that longer is worth the money going into it etc etc,the market stays artificially inflated and people don’t get a chance to buy as easily into a reset market that’s substantially lower.
What I do enjoy about this site is the energy, eagerness to solve problems for the greater good, but sometimes it’s so idealistic…
If you are disapponted with Obama,it’s understandable, but look at your options clearly.Any new plan, any new administration or organization takes concerted effort from a lot of people. Obama will withstand any challenger for 2012 from the Democratic Party. Only if he steps down for some reason will anyone else have a chance.
The tea party peoople are just corporate puppets, we know that, and the corporate folks play their game beautifully. Remember that when you are mad at Obama.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2010/10/president-obamas-244-accomplishments/
By all accounts John Wayne Gacy was a hell of a clown. It doesn’t change the fact, however, that he murdered over 30 young men. Not that I’m comparing Obama to a serial killer.
I know she’s got some problems, but I’m starting to warm up to Waters. Yesterday, she told a crowd… “(A)s far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell.“
I agree with the congress woman she was right on point the president need to be more visible in the black communities.dont show up and hold a pep rally when you need our votes talking loud tap dancing and singing,its a new day in the village we want action.
“While I’m not near the side of Bachmann. I am not on the side of a snide “Well, good luck with not supporting Obama” fall in line sentiment.”
Same here. And no one I know is either. So…guess he’s gonna have to work for his votes. I think that’s a good thing.
Details are beginning to emerge regarding President Obama’s long-awaited “Jobs” proposal he plans to announce tonight.
It looks like the centerpiece of his proposal is a plan to extend the Social Security tax “holiday” for awhile longer — coupled with a new cut to amount that employers are required to match.
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/us/politics/09tax.html
This is bad for all kinds of reasons,most notably because it will likely create few new jobs, and it will continue/accelerate the decline of the Social Security trust fund — adding even more pressure to the calls for entitlement “reform.”
If this is the Obama Administration’s idea of a “big” jobs proposal — we are even more doomed going into in2012 than I ever dreamed.
and it will continue/accelerate the decline of the Social Security trust fund
Reading comprehension, how does it fucking work?
From the same article you linked to:
Cutting payroll taxes does not affect the government’s obligation to pay benefits to older Americans. Indeed, the White House plan specifies that amounts not paid by workers and companies must be paid to Social Security from other sources of government revenue.
The Obama administration issued a report yesterday explaining how they’ve helped black Americans.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/730792/white_house_releases_report_outlining_how_it’s_helped_blacks