I can think of no better reason to vote against Obama than the prospect of an administration where any criticism of the President is treated as racism.
Well, yeah.
Of course, the fact that some of the people opposed to Obama actually are racists isn't helping, as they will be the subject of much attention (and much deserved criticism) from our friends on the left and/or in the media.
Unmentioned by those same folks will be the fact that some of the people supporting Obama are doing so primarily because of race, too. Also unmentioned will be this larger campaign by Obama's supporters to delegitimze criticism of him by labeling critics as racist.
It's Hope and Change and Unity and all that.
Old rephrase from 2004 post "I can think of no better reason to vote against Bush than the prospect of an administration where any cirticism of the Presidnet is treated as anti-American."
His reasoning did not work then.
Or just maybe it IS about hope and change and unity.
But we're all just WAY to cynical for that, aren't we?
I can think of no better reason to vote against Obama than the prospect of an administration where any criticism of the President is treated as racism.
Wow. So the idea here is that Obama is such a shallow opportunist that he will use the race card on a daily basis to fend off "any" criticism of his administration?
I wonder about the rational thought that is going into this fear. Is it the fact that the only time Obama has really discussed race in this campaign was when it was forced upon him with the Rev. Wright incident? Is it because he accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party without once mentioning the fact that he is the first African-American to reach such heights in American politics? Upon what are these fears founded?
"Upon what are these fears founded?"
I think it probably has to do with the fact that every time he shows his face in public, he's still black. Seriously.
This may be a lose-lose game all the way around, and I don't see any way around it. My personal take is that both Obama and his campaign have consciously tried very hard to minimize the racial aspect of this race, with varying levels of success, and it just hasn't mattered. He will constantly be accused by some of playing the race card regardless of whether he is or not, and there will always be those outside his campaign (and occasionally maybe even some on the inside) who accuse his critics of being racist whether they are or not.
In spite of everyone's best efforts, there are going to be some very ugly moments in this very historic year. It is going to be a stark and unpleasant reminder of how far we still have to go as a society. I can only hope that, as in similar periods in our past, there will ultimately be some good come out it once we get through it. God knows it's going to be rough waters in the passage...
Barack Obama: a liar from the word go.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2008/02/20/st_obama_learns_the_washington_ways
"On "Meet the Press" Jan. 22, 2006, Tim Russert and Sen. Obama had the following exchange:
Russert: "When we talked back in November of '04 after your election, I said, 'There's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?'
Obama: 'Absolutely.'"
Obama: "I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed."
"This may be a lose-lose game all the way around, and I don't see any way around it. My personal take is that both Obama and his campaign have consciously tried very hard to minimize the racial aspect of this race, with varying levels of success, and it just hasn't mattered."
His campaign has done an admirable job of minimizing race, with the noted exception of the Philadelphia speech, which we've discussed and about which we have agreed to disagree.
I think some of his supporters (including those in the media) can be a bit, shall we say, overzealous, and it's from there that I have experienced the "you must be a racist for not supporting Obama" treatment, and from there that I expect such behavior to continue if he's elected.
Well this could get ugly. Cue the dancing bears. Cue the music!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
...and it's from there that I have experienced the "you must be a racist for not supporting Obama" treatment,
Wow. Again, I am just astounded. Who said this to you?
I'm not sure Obama is pushing this argument, but I think there are those in the media, and some of his supporters who do. I have no doubt that there are some people who won't vote for him because he's black, just as there are some people who will vote for him because he's black. As long as those discussions are ongoing, then race is still going to be an issue, and we won't be able to address substantive issues. I would much rather talk about his lack of experience; or his lack of achievements while in office; or his Marxist views, rather than his race.
" [Racists] will be the subject of much attention (and much deserved criticism) from our friends on the left and/or in the media."
..and, one would hope, criticism from the right as well.
What's happening is pretty much what Democrats said would happen: once the primary was over, and people started getting a good look at Obama versus McCain, McCain will fail.
Last Tuesday, the day Obama wrapped it up, he was down one point in the Gallup. Now he's up six.
I hope there are lots and lots of debates, with these two spending lots and lots of time side by side, because that's the best thing that could ever happen to the Obama campaign.
I'll just be happy if critisms of Obama, even from mainstream Republican sources, weren't based around his race, religion, and ethnicity.
Narc: Fat chance.
We will hear the Obama's middle name more often than we'll hear about the price of gas in the next 5 months.
One needs look no farther than our own joke of a school district to see the flaws of lumping any criticism into the "racism" category.
Narc... I hope you noticed that the post you linked was actually a criticism of Republicans and others using Obama's middle name as some sort of campaign tactic. Not sure if your were linking it as a criticism of race/religion/ethnicity based tactics or as an example of it, but it was intended as a criticism of the tactics (even by those who think they're just lampooning it or pointing out some sort of innocuous fact).
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Absolutely I noticed and I even drew attention to it on my own blog. I think it's a great post and a great point you're making. But I'm afraid people are going to go for the cheap shot more than actually trying to think about things.
Coolness. I just got that sudden worry that I may have come off completely the opposite as intended. With my propensity of typos and sometimes incoherent rambling, a legitimate worry. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well, some of the criticism Obama invited himself. He wants to define the argument until it becomes uncomfortable and then the topic is off limits. For example, you really can't send your wife out on the campaign, listen to her lunatic statements, and then expect no crticism because she's your wife. You can't support people like Rev. Wright and then expect no criticism. Isn't Obama the candidate who emphasizes all of that good judgment he has? If so, it must not extend to those around him. I'm sure he'll be a good judge of character once he's in the White HOuse, however.
Tim Wise, to Hillary supporters considering McCain:
Emphasis added.
(Via Andrew Sullivan - yes, I sometimes read Andrew Sullivan)
"Well, some of the criticism Obama invited himself. He wants to define the argument until it becomes uncomfortable and then the topic is off limits."
I think he has gone out of his way to avoid the race issue, and generally has limited himself to answering questions directly when he is asked. However, critics have often accused him of bringing up the issue simply because he chose to answer those questions. Obama apparently felt the big Rev. Wright-race speech was needed as a definitive response to what he had been addressing non-stop.
"For example, you really can't send your wife out on the campaign, listen to her lunatic statements, and then expect no crticism because she's your wife. You can't support people like Rev. Wright and then expect no criticism."
Obama is enough of a realist to have expected some backlash based on comments made both by his wife and by Rev. Wright. Can you cite some specific instances in which he challenged anyone's right to criticize?
Re the Tim Wise / Andrew Sullivan post, here's a further take from Camille Paglia in Salon:
"It wasn't sexism that cost Hillary the nomination: It was her own misjudgments and mismanagement of a campaign that had the massive support of the nationwide party establishment...In point of fact, Hillary's sex helped her more than hurt her. What the media repeatedly claimed was her success in debate was predicated on her silencing of her male competitors, who were bullied into excess caution in dealing with a woman. Not one Democratic male dared attack or rebut her with the zest shown by all the Republican candidates jousting with each other.
"All of this rubbish was resurrected last week in the thousand mawkish excuses found by the media and her crooning acolytes for "giving her time" to withdraw from the race. No man would have been treated in that overconcerned way -- as a frail vessel of quivering emotion."
IP: I think Wise was right, but wrong in his terminology. I think their impetuous privilege is showing, not their "whiteness". That might be manifested in white privilege, but it's no different from other privilege.
"IP: I think Wise was right, but wrong in his terminology."
Right or wrong, I'm just posting him as an example, for those who are "astounded," that some Obama supporters are portraying those who don't support him as racist.
I don't spend a lot of time lurking around pro-Obama sites, I've neglected to save examples I've seen previously, and I'm not going to share emails I've been sent, but as I come across things like this, I'll post them here every now and then.
I don't think it applies though. This is not an attempt to brand anyone who doesn't vote for Obama as "racist". It's an appraisal of those who choose to vote against THEIR OWN VALUES to vote against him.
That seems fair. If I supported all of McCain's positions, but voted for Obama because he's not white, that would be race-based vote casting.
Ironically, this is the opposite of the charge against African Americans who disproportionately support Obama who SHARES their positions on policy.
I'm just posting him as an example, for those who are "astounded," that some Obama supporters are portraying those who don't support him as racist.
Sorry. I thought from your previous remarks that Obama supporters had said you were personally racist for not supporting Obama. I can see now that no such thing has ever happened and you are just responding to some isolated incidents where you have detected this message, whether it has been there or not.
Perhaps for each of the things you post from your e-mail collection I will post one of the e-mails I have received about Obama being born in the jungle, the son of a white woman and a gorilla?
"I thought from your previous remarks that Obama supporters had said you were personally racist for not supporting Obama. "
They (less than five, from what I can tell) have. And I've said I won't share the emails, or publish the comments. Sorry.
So I'm sharing what I can that is in the public arena, since it's so unbelievable that some who would support Obama would say such things.
Wow. I know you think this is hyperbole, but I really am astounded that someone would say you are racist for not supporting Obama. I honestly haven't come across these people in my experience and, frankly, I think they are doing more harm to the cause then good. I think Obama needs to win regardless of race.
"Wow. I know you think this is hyperbole, but I really am astounded that someone would say you are racist for not supporting Obama. I honestly haven't come across these people in my experience and, frankly, I think they are doing more harm to the cause then good."
FWLIW, the stuff I've gotten via email and comments has been along the lines of, "Since you don't like McCain very much, if you don't support Obama it must be because he's black."
As I've said, I think the Obama campaign has done a mostly admirable job of minimizing race (other than the Philadelphia speech), but some of his supporters - a very small percentage, to be sure - are overzealous.
Speaking of racism, Fox News had this little gem of an example on how the Republicans plan to win this race:
But they're not racist in any way, no, not at all.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Do the Republicans own Fox news now, I know CNN has a lot of talking heads speaking for Obama, but not all conservatives speak for me or republicans? While I really don't think what Fox news is saying at the bottom of this caption is appropaite. I think it's interesting after all the attacks on the wifes of republican candidates over years that somehow now Obama's wife is off limits.
I'm not surprised by Run4cvrlib's response to side-step the blatant racism here, and how "not all conservatives speak for me or republicans", yet all liberals speak for all Democrats or Greens as far as he's concerned. Nobody is saying Obama's wife is more off-limits than any other candidate's spouse, but that this crosses a huge line. Why not run a chyron that says "Outraged Conservatives: Stop picking on McCain's Golddigger!", that's about what this says.
But by all means, ignore the racism.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Is that Malkin? Who even lets her on TV? Why are her eyes closed? Is she dream of concentration camps? If you prick her, does she bleed? Or does she just ooze pure hatred in liquid form?
Cardinal Francis George published a paper entitled Catholic Update, Racial Reconsiliation. He states that "human beings, exercising their free will, defied the will of God and replaced the divinely planned harmoney with division, the divinely willed unity with conflict, the divinely intended community with fragmentation. One form of human division, confilict and fragmentation is racism: personal, social, institutional and structural.
He does not define personal or structural, but states about institutional racism. "Sustaining institutions that privilege people like themselves and habitually ignore the contributions of other peoples and cultures. This "whilte privilege" often goes undectected because it has become internalized and integrated as part of one's outlook on the world by custom, habit,or tradtion. It can be seen in most of our institutions" government, associations and clubs, business, education, housing, healthcare, sports and arts. In the Church as well, "all too often in the very places where blacks...are numerous..."
He does define some other types of Racism.
Spatial Racism: Patterns of metropolitan developoment in which some affluent WHITES create racially and economically segregated suburbs....
Inernalized Racism: Many lacks,,...are socialized and educated in institutions which devalue the presence and contribuitions of pople of color and celebrate only the contributions of whites.
Individual Racism. This perpetrates itself quietly when people grow up with a sense of white racial superiority, whether conscious or unconscious.
The problem that I see with this analysis is that it perpetuates the division between the whites and blacks. It puts them on different teams. It adopts a type of liberation theology that observed with Reverand Wright. Dynamic Catholicism, by Thomas Bokenkotter (A historical Catechism) , 1985-- suggest this about liberation theology at page 37: "The liberation theologians agree with Marx that any interpretation of the Gospel that does not aim at revolutionary action to overcome the alienation of the worker is itself a factor in upholding an unjust order. If we are authentically committed to the Kindgodm, they say, we must join the struggle to subvert the existing social order. In the light of that commitment, we shall be able correctly to discern the present reality and determine the possibilities for the future. The author states: "Their Marxian interpretation of the Bible would have us neglect other members of society, who are living lives of spiritual poverty and who stand just as much in need of the liberating power of the Gospel, as those living in actual poverty. Finally, he thinks the advocates of liberation theology too easily equate one particular form of social organization (Marxian socialism) with the imperatives of the Gospel. The Church is rearely able to make such a sure choice between rival socail systems, since both the Gospel and its tradition offer little help in this regard."
I think that this is the essence of liberalism (socialism). It is because we think it is. Liberals are generous, but usually with other peoples money. They think in terms of race rather than in terms of better categories ("at risk") is murky, but it is certainly an improvement over race based classifications and sterotypes which affirmative action seemed to foster. Lincoln Challenge, where I have been on the advisory board for about 12 years, admits about 75% minorities. There is no need to define who is there by race-it would be counter productive. Cardinal George ought to remember that we should all be known for the content of our character rather than the color of our skin.
That's right Arvid ignore the fact that I said the caption wasn't appropriate and I will say it more plainly it's wrong but why would I expect you to be truthful about any statement.Yet all liberals speak for all Democrats or Greens as far as he's concerned.--Yes and I said this when? You seem to paint every conservative as a racist. You apparently have a problem of race, or create one were ever you, go sorry I would rather not have one. Fox did the caption not the Republican Party nothing you say will change that. Have a grumpy day.
"Speaking of racism, Fox News had this little gem of an example on how the Republicans plan to win this race:"
First, Fox News does not equal the Republican Party, or the McCain campaign.
Second, it's an absolutely disgusting story.
And the rest of the media is not the Democratic Party, or the Obama campaign, yet that doesn't stop accusations that the rest of the media is favorable to Obama and that they must be in cahoots....
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
It's one thing to be favorable to a candidate and biased... a whole other problem if they are actually in cahoots, as you put it.
Either way, Fox needs to can the yahoo that thought that tagline was in any way shape or form appropriate.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"And the rest of the media is not the Democratic Party, or the Obama campaign, yet that doesn't stop accusations that the rest of the media is favorable to Obama and that they must be in cahoots...."
Nobody is arguing that Fox News favors John McCain. They're incompetent, but clearly biased.
Yet somehow everyone will argue that every other major media outlet - including almost all major newspapers, the wire services, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and the major newsmagazines are just as obviously pulling for Obama.
I doubt any of them are "in cahoots." But they certainly are playing favorites. And it's impossible to argue that, on the whole, media bias is benefitting John McCain more than Barack Obama.
I just watched the segment on Fox News - a couple of points.
RSW... On the first question it appears not, FoxNews had their senior vicepresident of programming issue a statemet that said, "A producer on the program exercised poor judgment in using this chyron during the segment." It appears to have been a poor attempt at humor that was very inappropriate.
On the second point, Malkin's response said that the chryon statements weren't on her monitor from where she was sitting, and she was unaware that she was speaking against personal attacks as the producer was apparently making one at the exact same time. If I were her I'd be pretty annoyed, since many of the screenshots make her look like she was making the comment... and the video clips could make her look like a jackass if people got that impression.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
It appears to have been a poor attempt at humor that was very inappropriate.
I agree. And in a continuation of the culture gap, I was unaware of the slang meaning of "baby mama". If this producer was calling Michelle something pretty close to a "ho" (yes?), then the producer should be printing fresh resumes.
RSW: from my experience, "baby mama" means "my child's mother", used to imply that you're no longer in a romantic relationship with that woman. It can be derogatory, it might not be; just depends on the usage.
word out
HG
Rush just played (about ten times in a row) an audio clip of Michelle Obama, speaking at Obama's 2004 victory party, introducing him as "my baby's daddy."
That was fast.
(FWLIW, the Fox people should still be fired. But this should also deflate the mock outrage coming from the campaign of Hope, Unity and Change.)
IP... I remembered there was some similar incident in the past where Obama said something along those lines. Turned out I was remembering the wrong Obama saying it. Explains why my google search failed miserably in finding it. It doesn't get Fox off the hook for emulating Jerry Springer chyrons... but it might tone down some of the most outrage over it. How this guy thought it would be appropriate when everybody else on both sides seems to see that it wasn't should at least result in some sort of punishment, up to and including canning him. He made Fox and others look like jackasses.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Those damn Republicans are spreading lies about The Messiah again:
Oh, they're Democrats? Never mind....
The update is even better:
Yes, the Tennessee Democratic Party is trying to blame Republicans for the "terrorist connected" statement, which was made by a member of the TN Democratic Party's executive committee.
Isn't this "New Politics" fun? It's all the fault of eeeevvvviiiiilllllll Republicans, even when it's said by high-ranking Democrats.
I'm sorry, but language has context and flexible meaning. It's very different if someone uses the term "baby's daddy" in a cultural setting to describe a loved one and if someone uses it as a mocking appropriation of language to attack an opponent.
That should be abundantly clear--If my wife says, "C'mere chink!" in a sarcastic, loving way, and any witnesses and myself understand the context, that's completely different than if critics in her election respond to her saying, "Don't pick on my husband!" by saying, "Outrage LIBERAL says stop picking on chink!"
If you pick up a gun and go hunting, that's a lot different than me going in the press and saying, "I'm a bitter hick NRA dude, LALALA!" and pretend to shoot myself in the leg a couple of times.
If you really are going to play the "if she can say it, so can I" crap, when the connotation and context are completely different, I have no respect for your sincerity.
"If you really are going to play the "if she can say it, so can I" crap..."
I looked again, but I don't see anyone saying that Fox was in the right here... pretty much everyone agrees it was inappropriate and that some proverbial heads should roll. There appears to be some disagreement on exactly how inappropriate it is... on par with a racial slur versus being unnecessarily insensitive, and exactly how malicious the motive was or if it was just a boneheaded attempt at humor. But everybody seems to be on the same page that they shouldn't have done it. No "so can I" crap.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Exactly. This doesn't even QUALIFY for the whole debate of "if she can say it, so can I...".
"Baby's Mama" != Baby Mama. "Baby's Daddy" != Baby Daddy.
That apostrophe s makes all the difference in the world. It's slang jargon, but it's a specific meaning.
If you want to claim ignorance of that, okay, it could be a slip[1]. But people offended at the use of "Baby Mama" there KNOW the difference.
As for the racial angle, it depends. The use of the term definitely started out pretty much being used for black women only, but it's spread, now you can use it for the proverbial "trailer trash" set too. Either way, it's most certainly NOT a compliment. Slutty low class people and their oversexin' ways, having tons of kids and going on the dole, don't you know where the babby comes from? overtones.
[1] One theory has it that someone with a less than fine grasp of modern youth slang chose the term because (1) "well, didn't his wife say similar anyhow?" plus (2) the irresistable urge to exploit the sort of rhyming flow of "Obama" and "Mama" - the urge to go cute has gotten many a reporter in trouble before. Still, foot was jammed FIRMLY in mouth. The hilarious part is that while Fox apologized for the thing, there are people on the web unrelated to either Fox or the guy who made the graphic who are fighting to death for the idea that it's all okay, what's the problem? So it's prolonging the... "Obama Baby Mama Drama Trauma" (sorry... couldn't resist).
Anyone remember the "I'd hit it" cheeseburger ads?
I don't think anybody's claiming Obama is the messiah, IP -- just that he's going to clean McCain's clock, and that'll be a good thing for America.