Salt City Sinner

In my previous post on this topic, I explained that a Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry had penned a column for the Nation magazine called " Black President, Double Standards: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama " in which she claimed that white progressives who had given Clinton a pass on his centrist tendencies were unwilling to extend the same courtesy to Obama due to racism. I found this pretty preposterous, and pointed out many variables other than race that could account for Obama's dwindling support (Obama has continued our endless, mindless "war on terror" on two fronts and expanded our military commitments to include the NATO action in Libya as well, Obama has failed on most of his major campaign promises to progressives including closing GITMO and the CIA's black sites, Clinton ran as a moderate while Obama ran as a liberal, &c. &c.). Gene Lyons, an old hand when it comes to anything Clinton, also expressed his outrage over Dr. Harris-Perr...

Quite a hubbub has been sweeping the liberal/progressive media outlets lately regarding a column by Melisa Harris-Perry entitled “ BlackPresident, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama .” Harris-Perry attempts to measure the electoral “roll-off” that can be ascribed to racism in the 2004 Senate race between then-State Senator Barack Obama and perennial wingnut candidate Alan Keyes, the 2008 general election, and the 1994 re-election of President Clinton. Her thesis, which is a bit murky, seems to be that by comparing the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, we can conclusively establish that the variable at play is racism on the part of white liberals (which is a political category that fits me pretty well, so I might as well kick someone).  Astonishingly, my first and most major objection to Harris-Perry's column ("wait, Clinton wasn't a liberal") is contained within the column itself, written by the author as though it suppor...

Colorful fraudster and "Junk Bond King" Michael Milken crapped out a column on capital markets in today's Wall Street Journal - because, you know, nobody really has more credibility when it comes to finance than a guy who was convicted of six securities and reporting felonies. Whatever rigorous screening process is in place at the WSJ's opinion page did a fantastic job filtering that one out. It's a strange thing about right wing pundits - how many of them are actual , convicted-and-did-time , literal criminals. I suppose you could say the Republican approach to law and order is much the same as their approach to energy regulations or environmental policy: nobody understands the system like a real "insider."