The liberal fetishization of black rage is a creepy thing and it is also inherently racist. Liberal commentators expect Obama's anger to be racial rather than political, but they have not considered that Obama has nothing to be angry about.
The "Angry Black Man" Obama meme goes a while back to Bill Maher, who has kept saying that Obama needs to become an "angry black man" to win.
The meme has now gone wide with Michael Moore, who famously claimed that 9/11 would never have happened with black passengers, saying that Obama was intimidated into being timid because of accusations that he was an angry black man.
Michael Eric Dyson, who unlike Maher and Moore actually is black, joined in the fun on (where else) MSNBC by claiming that Obama had been afraid of coming off as an angry black man. And the always reliably insane Ed Schultz agreed with him.
It was just very frustrating to watch a guy lie to the American people and not be counter-punched because we're afraid he's going to be called an angry black man. When I see the president, I don't see a black man.
Except Schultz does see an "Angry Black Man", because he attributes Obama's poor performance to some neurosis about being an angry black man... when it's actually Schultz who has the neurosis.
The liberal fetishization of black rage is a creepy thing and it is also inherently racist. Liberal commentators expect Obama's anger to be racial rather than political. They keep thinking that Obama is the Incredible Hulk with a mild-mannered exterior and uncontrollable rage over the oppression of the black man pulsing within. All he has to do is step into a phone booth, tear off his suit and underneath he's Huey P. Newton.
This is actual racial stereotyping and Moore, Schultz and Co. never seem to have considered that Obama has nothing to be angry about. Obama has become successful with a minimum amount of effort. He lives a comfortable life and a charmed one. He really has nothing to be angry about.
The public displays of black anger that liberals crave so much are wholly calculated, whether it was the Black Panthers who channeled the anger of urban liberals or rappers who channeled the anger of suburban white kids or Obama delivering fake angry speeches early in his career. These are displays and while they occasionally have anger behind them, it is not the "oppressed" anger that white liberals crave, but temporary frustration and occasional anti-social tendencies.
At the Huffington Post, an article declares, "It's Time For Obama To Become The 'Angry Black Man". At the Daily Beast, white liberal Susannah Breslin writes of her frustration at Obama's failure to channel her anger. "I wonder silently what happened to the hope-inspiring orator I stood in a line the length of several city blocks to vote for four years ago, a president so passive on tonight’s stage it seems he’ll do anything to avoid having voters dismiss him as an angry black man."
But why not accept Obama as a politician engaging in a strategic debate with another politician instead of acting as the collective liberal Id? Is Obama's career really supposed to come down to acting out the angry fantasies of white liberals and how do they imagine Obama feels about the calls to be more of, what white liberals, think a black man should be?