Friday, March 21, 2008

Back to 1968

The more I think on the Obama campaign, the less I think of my preferred candidate and the more I think about the party and the course of American politics in my life. My intended post on "the South" in the liberal political imagination is changing on an almost daily basis as a result of this electoral season. What I had once seen as a mostly academic argument between two sets of political thinkers and strategists has taken on a life within the primaries. Knowing I am being too reductionistic here, the anti-Southern faction regards the legacy of slavery and racism an intolerable stain upon the nation, one that prevents progressive governance, and so must be spurned as irredeemable. "F*ck the South!" you can read in blog after blog when the topic comes up. With this primary campaign, I think we are getting a picture o what that stance concretely means when used as political strategy. It means campaigning on racism.

With every electoral victory of his opponent, Obama has intensified his cries of racism and increased his own overtly racialized claims. Casting common phrases, such as a roll of the dice, as racist code. Claiming that his opponent did not shed a tear for the black victims of Hurricane Katrina. Sneering that his opponents supports were Archie Bunkers. Sampling Malcolm X's anti-white rhetoric in Mississippi. The more he is challenged on basic issues such as economic policy and electability, the more he escalates his rhetoric of race.

His speech the other day had a peculiar theme: America's racist past can only be laid to rest by voting for Obama, which would prove that his accusations aren't true. What Obama does with his rhetorical strategy is turn something salutary - a proud vote by the African American population for a competitive AA candidate - into something corrupting - that a failure to vote for him is nothing less than an expression of (white) racism. The fundamental reason you typical white folks aren't voting for me is because you are driven by racism. He presented a peculiarly bastardized version of John Edwards' Two Americas; the enlightened one who will vote for him and the retrograde one which will not. And, by virtue of this speech being made in a primary campaign, the division is one that runs through the Democratic Party, not a marker of distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

This argument reversese forty years of principled, painful, exhausting battles done by the Left to overcome the crippling bigotry that once was ubiquitous. These very battles are the ones he disdainfully dismissed in his interview with the Republican paper in Reno. He returns the Democratic Party to the state it was after LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act, as though nothing had happened in the party or in Democratic politics since 1968.

Why is his rhetoric so corrosive to the Democratic Party? He has crossed the line from condemning racism as such to declaring individual Democrats to be racists, making this the core of his campaign strategy. Rather than praise the successes of the party in combatting bigotry, he flings reckless smears that his opponent is nothing but a racist, foregrounding that as the common ground for AA support of him and deliberately fanning the flames by casting a possible defeat as white machinations to deny the just rewards of a black candidate. As I said in my earlier post about his legitimacy problem, Obama won't admit that there is any legitimate way to defeat him (perhaps because he himself does not utilize legitimate means and thus projects his own questionable tactics onto others) and, thus, any defeat must have been a dirty trick engineered by the racists in the party.

It is an incredibly incendiary assault. To fail to vote for him is to be racist, an "Archie Bunker." That image is invoked not because Archie was dumb but because he is the American cultural icon of racial bigotry. The growing fury at Obama for placing the party in this position gets turned again as racist backlash, deliberately using the fear of AA anger instrumentally for his own gain - gimme the nomination or your convention will be 1968 combined with the Rodney King riots. The MSM, bless their evil little hearts, are salivating at the thought.

This corrosive narrative is a cold and brutal campaign calculation in accord with Obama's continually demonstrated contempt for anything or anyone who denies him what he wants. He has accomplished what the Republicans alone could not do, split the party itself on race. The Republicans peeled away those who were racist - read your Krugman - and Obama has declared any who oppose him to also be part of that group, rejecting the innocence of any act (she'll do anything to get elected, it's all calculation) that can be twisted into a racialized mode.

Looking at this from a party standpoint, there is political need for acknowledging foolish but not ill-intentioned trespasses, such as Obama's own moronic words about his grandmother, so that errors may be forgiven and cooperation secured. Such a space must also be established so that we can clearly identify what is too much, too far, too destructive, too deliberate, to be forgiven. Finally, there has to be political room in which there can be legitimate disagreement about policies and approaches. If your opponent is not simply someone who holds a different opinion or who has come to an incorrect stance, but is in truth a "monster," beyond the pale of the civic community, then there are no grounds upon which you can cooperate. There is only capitulation. You make enemies of people who should be allies.

Political judgment is missing from the Obama campaign (and the DNC stance) in their calculation that "we" all know the rhetoric and strategy is "just politics," except that you have just declared that I am the moral equivalent of George Wallace in 1968.

The Democrats have already fought those battles and have nothing left to prove.



Anonymous said...

I think what revolts me the most is this idea of "if you don't vote for me, you will be destroying the party. Hello! I'm not voting for you because of the way you have conducted your campaign, screaming racism at every chance you have!!

Anonymous said...

Pravo !

It is the issue that everyone is trying to tip-toe around. Guilting America to win should Obama's campaign slogan really.

Anonymous said...

Amazing analysis! Thank you for writing what I was thinking, only better!

Anonymous said...


If they give this guy the nomination, the dems will be crushed in November and won't recover for years. He may can pull that on some ultra liberals but the rest of the country ain't going for it.

gendergappers said...

Anglachel -

Is it permitted to copy great posts like this and spread them around if credit and URL is given?

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much! I wrote the following the other day at HillarysVoice...but thought I was alone in my thinking. Today, you said what I was feeling so much better than I did/'could:

"....That's why I am so dismayed at Rev Wright's stunningly angry sermons. They say such horrible things about me (I'm white). They suggest things that, in my entire lifetime, I have never felt toward anyone. And I was sad that these things are being rountinely said...behind my back (kind of like discovering your friends "talking" about you behind your back - it shocks you and it makes you depressed. "How could I have been so stupid to think so-and-so liked me??").

In fact, prior to this primary season, I thought things were getting better between the races. In my lifetime I have seen AA's take on new important responsibilities and achieve great success. I have seen interracial marriages (yup...when I was born, that was a no-no) and not have the neighbors or family go nuts. I have gained a whole world of new friendships and knowledge. And I felt that we were better people for it.

I fear most that this primary will have ripped off the scab from a wound that (I thought) was healing (or at least improving) for this nation. It will have set us back 50 years. And we will have added a new national nightmare of coming face to face with a sexist wound that was festering under the surface.

I don't have any suggestions on how to "get back" to where we were. I just know that things are going to be ugly for some time to come.

God bless America. We'll need it."

Anonymous said...

Gendergappers, yes. If you clearly identify who the writer (Anglachel) is and mention the source (URL), you can spread it far and wide. I think we should. I am fairly new to Anglachel. But am so grateful for her very well thought out timely blogs.

hiker25 said...

If the Democratic Party nominee is Obama they may as well be the Black Panther Party. The Obama site has removed the Black Panther endorsement , but a spokesman for the group said on Fox News that was for political reasons (they understand) and they stand by him.

Obama's vote-for-me-or-you're-a-racist speech and the threats of riots and a black boycott of the party fall in line with the Black Panther way of thinking.

He also has the endorsement Black Muslim Louis Farrakhan. Even though Hillary Clinton brought up the ties to Farrakhan in a debate, Obama has refused to denounce him.

The Newsweek journalist Jim Davis, who reported on the church service July 22, 2007 that Obama originally denied attending, said there were only a handful of white men in attendance aside from the Obama secret service.
Obama Church: Cauldron of Division

Trinity UCC is a black Africa-focused congregation where whites are considered "blue-eyed devils." (Farrakhan)

Anonymous said...

Your analysis of Obama's MO is so on the money I feel compelled to post my analysis os his speech, which was a perfect microcosm of his candidacy, here. I took out a passage that I found the perfect illustration of Obama's attitude.
I am probably one of those self-hating blacks who don't "get it".

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. (*by not voting for Obama). We can tackle race only as spectacle (*which we certainly will if Obama is not made POTUS) – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina (*We didn’t treat Katrina as a spectacle, to the contrary people made donations, volunteered turned their back on George Bush for good. There is still a lot of private initiative going on today. The government failed b/c the Bush admin. is dysfunctional and incompetent but “we” were amazing, in fairness) - or as fodder for the nightly news. (*Actually the press kinda did it job on Katrina, for once. Our real problem was that we didn’t have Barack Obama as POTUS, nevermind that he was a highly visible national figure). We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election (*don’t do it because it would hurt Obama’s chances, but keep showing Rev Wright next to Bill Clinton so everyone can see the "terrible" people with whom the Clintons had their pictures taken ), and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words (*we don’t have to wonder why he hung around those sometimes vicious sermons for 20 yrs). We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card (*very slick. Throw Hillary Clinton and her supporters again in the racist camp, nevermind that Obama’s own campaign sent out a 4 page memo to the press, asking them to turn anything Hillary Clinton or any of her surrogates say into racism, nevermind that Michelle Obama told an AA audience in SC that Bill Clinton called Obama a “fairy tale”, nevermind Doug Wilder, McCaskill and John Kerry, nevermind Obama himself telling and AA audience in MS that Hillary Clinton leaked his picture in Somali garb) or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies (*those racist bastards! Maybe some of them don’t find him ready in matters of national security, maybe some of them don find him appealing, but you happen to be a white man and don’t vote for Obama, well you know…)
We can do that. (*by not voting for Obama)
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change (*but if we make Obama POTUS, we will move on to more important stuff).
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” (*And how do we do it, you asked? Well by making Barack Obama POTUS, you dummies!)

Anonymous said...

Well said. I'm sure you will be slammed for this, but I wanted to write to you and say this analysis is spot on. Since he invited the "conversation on race" -- an entirely legitimate response is "you have to earn the right, Sir, to talk about such matters"! Nothing this man has said indicates his vision for how will solve the nation's problems especially difficult ones such as race relations. And switching the topic to grander themes does not help when America is just learning about his associations, judgement and character.

Anonymous said...

This was a profoundly disturbing post to me. Obama was not talking at all about voting for himself. He was explaining his relationship to Rev. Wright and the current state of race relations as he sees them. He specifically said that Rev. Wright (who would be Emmet Till's age if he were alive) sees race as a static issue rather than the dynamic changes that have occured.

He in no way talked about his candidacy; but rather the image being floated that he is racist and hates white people.

This was a sad post to me. I'm a woman and an african american and feel truly upset that you would try to turn this into something it quite literally is not.

Anonymous said...

Drivel. Absolute drivel.

Obama never cried "racism," and despite what a lot of people think, the Clintons aren't racist.

But the Clintons aren't beneath fanning racial flames or exploiting xenophobia.

Anonymous said...

"Drivel. Absolute drivel.

Obama never cried "racism," and despite what a lot of people think, the Clintons aren't racist.

But the Clintons aren't beneath fanning racial flames or exploiting xenophobia."

And how, exactly have the Clintons fanned racial flames and exploited xenophobia?

Anonymous said...

You're absolutely right on. Obama and his historically clueless followers act like party doesn't matter, and in the process they are threatening the health of the party that has been most responsible for listening to and working with civil rights leaders. BO's race relations lecture was pure arrogance.

Amelia said...

Obama never cried racism? You're kidding right?

On the night of the New Hampshire primary his surrogates and supporters on TV claimed that old white ladies who voted for him were closet racists (the Bradley effect). The next morning Jesse Jackson Jr. analyzed Hillary's tears and declared them racist.

In the run-up to South Carolina the cries of racism! were deafening in relation to non-racist statements that Obama's shtick about his vast wisdom on the Iraq war was a "fairy tale" and Hillary's completely unremarkable comment that power in the White House, as in LBJ, was an important element in making Martin Luther King's dream a reality.

Against this background Obama borrowed the words of Malcolm X (at least as uttered in the movie) to African American audiences to describe the Clintons. In the movie the words were used as descriptions of white racism.

In the meantime every night on MSNBC Obama supporters and surrogates talked about those low income white working class people voting for Hillary--with the unmistakable implication that stupid people are racists. Not to mention all the talk about the so-called black/brown divide. Latinos are voting for Hillary not because they may think she's a better candidate but because they are also racist.

Geraldine Ferraro's comment was picked out of the 12th paragraph of a teeny newspaper in a small community and blown up into national news by the Obama people. Otherwise it would have been the proverbial tree falling in the forest that no one heard.

Then of course there's the analysis of the 3:00 a.m. ad -- counting black children to prove that the ad was all about race.

The man has no moral authority to talk about race when he has been playing a double game with race all along.

He has no moral authority to talk about race when he associates with a pastor who advocates collective guilt for all white people-- God damn America and all the white people in it for the brutal racial injustice of our past.

He has no moral authority to talk about race when he took $250K + from a man who, in Obama's own district and with Obama's help, got permits to rehab buildings and let them degenerate into uninhabitable slums where mostly black people lived.

He has no moral authority to talk about race when he's too afraid to take a stand on affirmative action, can't make up his mind on mandatory minimums (his position has changed how many times?) and is too much of a coward to say anything about the war on drugs which has led to so many black people being in prison.

He has no moral authority to claim he speaks for the social gospel when he voted for the bankruptcy bill, the credit card bill, and to end class action lawsuits by moving them into federal court; when he takes money from the nuclear industry and then waters down a bill on nuclear waste, or takes money from the Crown company and then abandons their workers who he had previously promised to help.

The man is a fraud.

The post by Anglachel by the way was superb.

Anonymous said...

Whenever it has come to a point where Obama has (should!) take a stand, he has been AWOL. He did it in the past with his "present" votes, and he refused to physically set foot in Connecticut in case he would be asked to "take a stand" on Ned Lamont's behalf.

So his use of "race" to hide behind because of his horrible decision to support REv. Wright for 20 years is even more troubling. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad...but he "will do anything" to get this nomination.

BTW, I read somewhere this AM that his "famous and historic" speech from last Tuesday was not written all night by Obama in his own hand (that's the way it was Lincoln studying by candlelight in front of a fireplace) but was a policy speech that had been drafted for him to use later - with tweeking to bring in Rev. Wright and to try, once again, to say that Ferrero's words were racist, too.

Shainzona said...

Why is it whenever an Obama supporter makes some talking point about the Clintons and s/he is asked to support the comment...they disappear.

Someone named "anonymous" makes the claim that ..."the Clintons aren't beneath fanning racial flames or exploiting xenophobia." and when asked to explain exactly when the Clintons have done so...they disappear. Maybe that's why they post under anonymous!

And BTW, the "Clintons" are not running for POTUS.

Anonymous said...

Amazing analysis, I agree! Amazing to the degree that it relies not on anything Obama has said or done but on the preformed conclusions of the blogger. Since working backwards to cram the evidence in a small box that cannot possibly hold it would not work, instead you offer disconnected assertions. Amazingly vacuous! Amazingly inane! Congratulations!

Ann said...

Sen. Obama is the divisive force here and all the negative sound bites in the world trying to blame Hillary for everything will no longer cut it. Obama is in a disastrous situation of his own making. The myth his campaign is trying to sell of 'hope, change and a new kind of politics' is just that. A myth. The Rev. Wright situation is not going to go away. Neither is Rezko et al. He arrogantly (once again) said something in an interview this week indicating this would fade away as people have short memories!! Is he kidding? His speech was a lovely diversion, designed to distract and get him out of the hot water he was in. Not going to happen. He is also divisive because he is willing to throw the entire Democratic party under a bus by not allowing a revote in MI and FL, or allow those original votes to be counted -- even though the DNC has OKed the prospect. And he has the nerve to say "the Clinton's don't like to lose..." -- as if HE does. If Sen. Obama is so sure he can lock up this nomination, why so much fear in letting the people of MI and FL have their original votes counted? Or a revote? Let's hear from the votrers. Is David Axelrod afraid to find out what these voters think of his candidate now? This country is made up of 50 states, after all. Let the voters decide. I can assure you, no matter what the "rules" (the Republican-dominated state legislature in FL forced the Dems to make the primary earlier as a condition of Dems getting a paper voting record) -- if the situation were reversed and Obama had won a majority of votes in the state, he'd have every lawyer at his disposal down there working to get the votes counted and his team would probably scream racism and disenfranchisement if they weren't. Does anyone out there doubt this? And those who support Sen Obama would be screaming just as loudly to have their voices heard. Understandably so.

For someone so anxious to talk about race relations in his beautiful speech, you would imagine he would be the last person who would want to discount or disenfranchise anyone. We all deserve to have a voice. We are all in this together and need to work to put this country back together. Hillary Clinton has clearly shown she has a plan to do that. He has: "words matter" -- and he has shown in the last couple of weeks that his words do not, since he keeps contradicting himself. How, then, do we trust him exactly? The man has made himself unelectable. No one has done that for him. Obama's campaign has had a lovely ride in the press until recently and after a couple of weeks of tough coverage, they are imploding. Green. Inexperienced. After what has been revealed about him, the Republicans will ride this all the way to the White House in November if he is the nominee. Remember Dukakis? Remember Kerry? Sen. Obama is not 'untouchable' as was first assumed. His judgment, among other things has been called into question and no independent or republican voter will get anywhere near him. Certainly a lot of democrats have been truned off as well.

I have been a solid Democrat my entire life and have never voted otherwise. However, Sen. Obama has shown himself to be a divisive and weak character, perpetrating a sham -- I will not trust the future of the American people to anyone who is willing to throw out millions of voters' voices or who arrogantly assumes he will automatically get my vote in November without earning it - especially after roundly insulting my support for another candidate -- which he and his surrogates have done on many occasions. I invite him to test his prediction -- he and the foolish DNC elders, who for some confounded reason, seem to be tipping the scales in his favor -- will be very disappointed. He will not get my vote. I know a great many people who feel the same way.

We feel this way for one reason -- we need competence in the White House -- energy, vitality, smarts and a clear plan. Your race or gender doesn't matter a damn to us. Your qualifications and character do. Whether or not you like Senator Clinton, anyone who denies her great intelligence, policy knowledge, accomplishments and her true grit and resilience is the liar in this campaign.

No Blood for Hubris said...


Anonymous said...

Ohio here - You know the folk who were scammed about NAFTA. We are pissed, we believed, and now the truth is out. Oh Hillary great ruler of the world we bow to you. Errgh. Well it’s rinse time (vetting as the MSM likes to call it) and a little dirt has come out about Obama. I’ll give you all that. But if we run the rinse cycle on the Clinton's, it will not be a little dirt it will be a mudslide. Do you see the folk abandoning ship -. Richardson. gees..
Enuff said.

Scott said...

These claims of racism from Obama would carry more weight if backed up by actual evidence (quotes, youtube movies, whatever) instead of just loosely remembered anecdotes.

As it stand, this post is more a commentary on your interpretation of how the campaign is playing out instead of how it actually is.

Anonymous said...

To Ohio, you must not be paying attention... you are aware the media (which is no friend of Clinton) has repeatedly debunked Obama's little story about Clinton's position on Nafta? You are aware the media has been rolling out month old clips to enforce that Obama continues with his story despite being told repeatedly it is not true? A book was written several years ago that stated she was opposed to Nafta!

Go back and watch the Richardson endorsement after checking out the Obama leaked speech complete with stage direction 'turn and smile at Obama.' Obama is very uncomfortable and if I had to guess, I would say the DNC forced this on them. So watch it one more time and try not to laugh like some of us do.

To Scott... Google is your friend. His quotes have been listed repeatedly. Do your own research. You don't hear what you don't want to hear.

Anonymous said...

I understand the concern and the frustration astutely expressed in this essay. I grew up listening to my mother and grandmother talk about the party of FDR. Poverty and war are the great equalizers. I was too young to know of JFK, but I grew up in the shadow of his assasination. I do remember when Martin Luther King was murdered and seeing RFK on TV talking about it. I remember 1968. I remember seeing RFK on the news and my mom crying. Even my dad a staunch republican was disgusted by what he saw as the cowardly murder of these three men. I remember the terrific grief, and the violence as the war protests turned more confrontational. I remember riots on TV. I was a kid and people were worried. Today as an adult, I'm worried once again. I'm worried because I'm witnessing a change that is tearing apart the party. The cynical use of race baiting fanned by sensationalist media can have the very real effect you describe. A cynic is one who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions according to Webster. Manipulating fear is a common tactic in politics, but I agree this interfactional fighting within the democratic party is going too far. FDR said " The only thing to fear is fear itself " It will be a grave error if the party leadership underestimates the intelligence of the voters. The Roman principal of devide and conquer is and always has been obvious and brilliantly effective in it's simplicity.

Anonymous said...

Here are a few other instances by Obama officials or surrogates:

*Jesse Jackson, Jr. the day after NH (Jackson is the national co-chair of his campaign).

*Obama SC Memo

*Obama pushed the smear that the Clinton camp leaked the Somali garb photo--without proof--which is highly questionable since it relies Drudge as a source and fails to realize that the right-wing site, the Free Republic, circulated that very photo (one that had already been published in a tabloid and was a result of Obama bringing a camera crew with him to Africa) and numerous suggestions of e-mailing this to Drudge. This happened just two days before Drudge "broke" the story. It is all but certain the Free Republic is the source of that particular photo. Mind you, Obama stated this after he swore Clinton was not behind it.

*Axelrod pushed the smear that somehow Clinton was implying that Obama was a Muslim (which they continue to believe is a smear in itself) by completely distorting Clinton's remarks on 60 Minutes.

There more, like, Dick Harpootlian, a major SC backer (SC Dem chair) calling Bill Clinton "Lee Atwater" or Mayor Shirley Franklin attacking Bill Clinton--in church--with the false "fairy tale" smear, but this is what I could do for now. Here is a great debunking link on the false charges of racism raised to smear the Clinton camp

Davidson (I'm too tired to create a Google/Blogger ID)

P.S. I love this blog. Great job. I hope the links I provided will be of some service.

Anonymous said...

See this excellent, authoritative, detailed story of how, when, and why Obama smeared the Clintons as racists. That would be one good opportunity for the national conversation about race.

Anonymous said...

Whoa! Followed a link from Joe Klein to this site. After reading the post and comments, all I can conclude is you all belong to the wrong party. You'd be right at home with the Republicans.

The Caretaker said...

I'm alone, scared and confused. Is this a republican blog? Is Anglachel Sean Hannity's pen name? How did I get here?

One small grammatical tip before I leave: when you put things in "quotes" that usually means the person actually said it. As in Obama said this "......"

When its you yourself who are making things up, it doesn't need to go into quotes.

quachdh said...

I too am very disturbed by this post. I knew that right-wing conservatives would misinterpret Obama's eloquent speech on race and somehow find a way to paint him as a racist. I am fine with that and give them a pass because people who are either ignorant or have a fixed ideology would either never be able to comprehend that speech or would stubbornly stick to there beliefs no matter what Obama said. But I assume the people on here are Democrats and from what I can tell are very intelligent. Thus it just baffles me how so many on here can believe that Obama’s speech is a racist manifesto. This post just goes to show that you can over-analyze anything. If you look hard enough between the lines you can find whatever it is you want. I feel like I am in a literature class and the bullshit-o-meter is off the charts.

That speech was an amazing speech that touched on his life personally and spoke candidly about race in this country both past and present. It explained the nuanced relationship he has with his pastor and the nuances of racial tensions in this country. It also talked about hope for the future where all of this anger and tension could give way to understanding and respect. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you can believe that Obama is an arrogant racist prick and that his campaign is destroying the Democratic Party. And hell, it might just be true but please…. please don’t belittle his speech and denigrate it to a racist rant. It was a beautiful and thoughtful speech on a topic that few have the courage to talk about and for anyone, especially Democrats, to find such insidious intent in it truly sickens me. I support Obama, but I also support the Democratic Party and if Hillary wins the nomination, I will fully support her in the general election. I just have to say that I am very disappointed in the acrimony that is on display in this blog and I hope this will all subside after someone is chosen.

Amelia said...

Who misinterpreted Obama's SPEECH as racist?

Who said Obama's speech was a racist manifesto?

You must be over-analyzing to find that.

The point (for me) was that the speech was "just words" because his actions no where match his rhetoric. He and his surrogates have unfairly slimed every criticism his opponent and characterized every vote for his opponent as racially motivated. That's gross. Not to mention that he's been AWOL on issues relating to race--from mandatory minimums to the war on drugs to affirmative action to declining to make any comment about Jena--all too incendiary to for him touch.

The speech was not racist it was disingenuous--he was saying don't play tapes of Rev. Wright on endless loops, that would be bad because it hurts me--but he never took the responsibility for wallowing in the muck of race baiting going back to New Hampshire. In fact he suggested it came from Hillary surrogates and that Ferraro--whose comments would never have been heard but for his campaign publicizing them far and wide so that he could call Hillary a racist--were the real culprits. Disingenuous is a generous way of characterizing that.

And while the speech was moving while you were listening to it, what did he say that will last for the ages? As far as I recall, he said black people resent white people for legitimate reasons, and white people resent black people for illegitimate reasons. I agree with that. But it's rather ho hum.

Anonymous said...

I think you are wrong. I think that he is not calling people who criticize him racist. I think Hillary has created all of this crap, and I've been laying low for a month now because I didn't want to be caught in the cycle of hate and such, but I've watched as her stupdity is just perpetuated.

ALL OF THIS IS HILLARY'S FAULT. Obama *IS* a great leader, and Hillary just kept slinging stuff until it stuck...and yet, Obama is still here and still winning and still strong.

If he can stand up to this crap, he can definitely stand up against John 100 Years McCain.

Anonymous said...

Obama supporters disappearing?

I'll stay right here and repudiate anything you like thank you very much.

It is the echochamber Hillary supporters that are just stirring up sludge again and again and I for one won't stand for it.

That is, unless this Blog is like Talk left where they delete anything that doesn't agree with them.

SergeiRostov said...

What Obama does with his rhetorical strategy is turn something salutary - a proud vote by the African American population for a competitive AA candidate - into something corrupting - that a failure to vote for him is nothing less than an expression of (white) racism. The fundamental reason you typical white folks aren't voting for me is because you are driven by racism.

Over at NoQuarter there's a speech by Rev. Meeks, Obama's OTHER spiritual advisor, where he says just this in his own campaign:

“If I do run and there are two people in the race who both are not standing for morality, if I don’t have every white Christian vote in the state of Illinois, I will stand on top of the Sears Tower and call every one of ya’ll racist,” Meeks said from his pulpit.

Now we know where Obama got this tactic from.


SergeiRostov said...

ALL OF THIS IS HILLARY'S FAULT. Obama *IS* a great leader,

What is your proof of this?

Maybe all of his "present" votees in in the IL Senate?

Maybe the (lack of) meetings of his own Committee on Afghanistan?

Maybe his (lack of) filibusters on war funding?

Maybe his watered-down versions of Hillary's policies (which he releases weeks or months after she does)?
Or, maybe his Senate bills (saying it would be nice if the Congo was more democratic and renaming a post office)

and Hillary just kept slinging stuff until it stuck...and yet, Obama is still here and still winning and still strong.

Name any "stuff" Hillary has can't. She has been 100% ethical.

And btw, Obama is still losing:

Blue states: Hillary

Large states won: Hillary

Swing states won: Hillary

Voters who will actually vote Dem in the fall: Hillary

50-state matchup against McCain:

Hillary (and Obama loses to him)

But ok, where is Obama winning?

- Red states which no Dem will win the fall;

- Swing states where Republicans can vote in Dem primaries;

- Caucuses which disenfranchise the majority of voters (esp. Dem voters) i.e. seniors, lower and middle class voters, non-wealthy parents, the poor
- Caucuses where there was illegal activity in his favor

Some "winning."

Even with all this - with FL and MI factored in - which they will have to be, or else Dems lose for sure in the fall - Hillary is only one-half percent behind in both the delegates and the popular vote, and polls show her winning most of the remaining primaries by wide margins.

SergeiRostov said...

Whoa! Followed a link from Joe Klein to this site. After reading the post and comments, all I can conclude is you all belong to the wrong party. You'd be right at home with the Republicans.

David Alexrod took the unsourced word of Matt Drudge over Hillary's.

Project much?

SergeiRostov said...

I'm alone, scared and confused. Is this a republican blog? Is Anglachel Sean Hannity's pen name? How did I get here?

Hopefully you were looking for the truth.

Don't worry, fright and confusion are common initial reactions to finding the truth (as you now have); they'll pass.