Rhymin' and Stealin'

Atlantic political reporter Marc Ambinder furrowed his brow at the phrasing in a McCain radio ad: It sounded a lot like a racial appeal. What happened next is instructive:

Remember yesterday's post about an ad alleging Obama would "rob" seniors? Here's the spot, recut. No longer does it include that verb.

This brings to mind a comment from Quin Hillyer, a conservative reporter who's had it up to here already with the New Republic's Chris Orr and his assertions that the McCain campaign is closing out the election with coded racial appeals.

I swear, what is WRONG with these lefties who see EVERYTHING through the prism of race?!? For the record, and especially for people like Orr who seem too dim to get it unless it is repeated multiple times: Culture and race are not one and the same. Culture and race are not one and the same. Criticisms of a black man for being radical have nothing to do with him being black. Criticisms of a black man for being radical have nothing to do with him being black. Conservatives do not dislike candidates just because they are "dark-skinned [men] with a foreign-sounding name." Conservatives do not dislike candidates just because they are "dark-skinned [men] with a foreign-sounding name."

I think it's a little more complex than that. Are there traditional Democratic voters who will vote against Obama explicitly because of his race? Yes. Same thing with some independents who will vote Democratic on the rest of the ballot. But Obama is winning, and part of the reason is that it's really hard in an increasingly post-racial America to run against a black candidate and use the arguments you'd deploy against a white candidate. Anti-liberal code words become "racist" code words. Making the candidate look menacing in your attack ads, a fairly conventional tactic in other races, is out of bounds. (Look what's happening in a Minnesota race between a white Republican and an Indian-American Democrat.)

The risk of running an attack that the media and intelligentsia view as racist is extremely high. This isn't because it motivates black voters against you. It's because, as Republicans have known as they drafted black candidates like Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell, there's a preponderance of white voters who don't want to appear racist. And there's always the hope that the Democrats, outraged by the audacity of a black Republican, will make some stupid insult and draw a backlash. It didn't work the way they hoped (I think it jumped the shark with the manufactured "lipstick on a pig" outrage) but why do you think Team McCain blustered so much about "sexism" against Sarah Palin?

It's hard to prove this stuff, but I think the best data point is this: Where's the Jeremiah Wright TV ad? If McCain doesn't run one on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday, he's punted on the most explosive racial problem Obama ever had. Why would he do that unless he's convinced that the backlash would be greater than the impact on Obama?

Comments

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 11:26am | #

In addition to all of that, it is a good thing that your candidate picked Sen. Biden as his VP candidate, because Sen. Biden would never make the mistake of saying anything overtly racist, or even implied.

Elemenope | October 30, 2008, 11:27am | #

But Obama is winning, and part of the reason is that it's really hard in an increasingly post-racial America to run against a black candidate and use the arguments you'd deploy against a white candidate. Anti-liberal code words become "racist" code words. Making the candidate look menacing in your attack ads, a fairly conventional tactic in other races, is out of bounds.

So perhaps, and I'm just spit-balling here, but perhaps this means that candidates ought to stop using code words (of any sort) and making their opponent look menacing?

Perhaps, and now I know I'm talking crazy, they should talk about their policy, governing strategy, and temperamental differences instead.

joe | October 30, 2008, 11:27am | #

Criticisms of a black man for being radical have nothing to do with him being black.

Wouldn't that depend on how the criticisms of phrased?

One could complain about Hillary Clinton's political style and capacity for making enemies by saying she is unpleasant, stubborn, quick to anger, and dismissive.

Or one could say she is shrewish, shrill, hysterical, and bitchy.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 11:30am | #

Joe, you realize you've just baited every Republican here into moaning about how sexist the media has been towards Palin, don't you?

Elemenope | October 30, 2008, 11:31am | #

Joe, you realize you've just baited every Republican here into moaning about how sexist the media has been towards Palin, don't you?

IT'S A TRAP!!!

henry | October 30, 2008, 11:32am | #

Gee, no wonder we have been electing so many black people to high office!

These blacks sure are lucky.

Naga Sadow | October 30, 2008, 11:33am | #

Joe,

There is some serious irony in that your post is right next to the ad that says "Blacks cannot be racist.

kevrob | October 30, 2008, 11:34am | #

Here's the dog that's not barking:

Where are the ads that McCain won't run because he's 'too honorable," that the pro-republican independent expenditure campaigns were supposed to be ginning up? The fear of GOPers revving up Swift Boatish 527s was what Obama used as his reason for refusing government financing for his general election campaign, right?

Kevin

Reinmoose | October 30, 2008, 11:35am | #

Maybe people wouldn't have thought the word "rob" was racist if the rest of McCain's ads were appealing to the worst sentiments of Americans.

joe | October 30, 2008, 11:36am | #

BDB,

Go 'way.

Baitin'.

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 11:38am | #

"Remember yesterday's post about an ad alleging Obama would "rob" seniors? Here's the spot, recut. No longer does it include that verb."

I swear I hate liberals....I am not a fan of either side of the fence but I have an extreme disgust for liberals. They are the least liberal minded people I know. All this talk of racism and the so called "Bradley effect" which I have never believed in. They are just words, now, if the ad has said "Obama is a nigger and he is going to rob you." OK I would understand the racist out cries. Also, isn't the assumption that using the term "rob" is racist, racist in itself? Is that not assuming that a majority of blacks are criminals therefore by using a term than involves criminal activity MUST have racial implications?

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 11:39am | #

Reinmoose,

Let me see if I can track the old Leftoid 'thought' process I used to practice.

If you say a Black fellow is going to "rob" someone, that is racist because the Black fellow is rellay engaged in "economic juistace" and it is that white honkey bastard over there who robbed everybody in the first place.

shecky | October 30, 2008, 11:42am | #

I swear I hate liberals....I am not a fan of either side of the fence but I have an extreme disgust for liberals. They are the least liberal minded people I know.

I Mark Ambinder a liberal?

shecky | October 30, 2008, 11:43am | #

Is Mark Ambinder a liberal?

*Sorry*

Reinmoose | October 30, 2008, 11:43am | #

Guy -
I don't think so, no.
I think it was seen as racist because they were creating imagery of a black man robbing old ladies, which is seen as exploiting a sterotype. It's seen as racist because it's engineered (assumption) to stir racial images, sterotypes, and associated fears.

What my statement was about is that maybe people would have given the McCain campaign the benefit of the doubt (maybe not made the assumption above) had he not exploited those sentiments earlier.

joe | October 30, 2008, 11:44am | #

It's racist to notice dog whistles.

Whatever.

Episiarch | October 30, 2008, 11:46am | #

IT'S A TRAP!!!

Admiral Ackbar is a secret Muslim, just like Obama! That's the trap!!!

Reinmoose | October 30, 2008, 11:46am | #

Like, as a known libertarian amongst my friends, I don't think if I said Obama was going to "steal from rich people to give it to greedy lazy people" (which I wouldn't, but just for sake of argument), I don't think my liberal friends would go "*GASP* I can NOT believe you just implied that all black men STEAL!"

SIV | October 30, 2008, 11:46am | #

Mark Ambinder a liberal?

Do they employ any non-liberals at The Atlantic?

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 11:46am | #

"Is Mark Ambinder a liberal?"


To be honest I have no idea, I forgot to preface my post with that. I just assumed anyone who saw that ad and though the term "rob" was clearly racist was a liberal.

joe | October 30, 2008, 11:50am | #

The Republican Party in some southern state sent out a mailer that was supposed to be a "Barack Obama Food Stamp Dollar," complete with pictures of fried chicken, Kool-Aid, and watermelon.

Terrible, racist liberal that I am, I actually didn't pretend not to understand what they were doing.

Elemenope | October 30, 2008, 11:52am | #

Admiral Ackbar is a secret Muslim, just like Obama! That's the trap!!!

At least he wasn't born in the same country as McCain, like MANUEL NORIEGA!!!

P Brooks | October 30, 2008, 11:53am | #

Obama is a kleptocrat. There. I said it.

creech | October 30, 2008, 11:53am | #

What are the odds that future criticisms of President Obama's policies will, in some quarters are least, be labelled racist?

SIV | October 30, 2008, 11:53am | #

The Republican Party in some southern state sent out a mailer that was supposed to be a "Barack Obama Food Stamp Dollar," complete with pictures of fried chicken, Kool-Aid, and watermelon.

cite

Episiarch | October 30, 2008, 11:54am | #

Charlie: Is it racist if we don't eat this guy?

Dee: Well, shit, Charlie. Now it is!

Charlie: I'm sorry, Dee! I just—the white guy over here looks better to me for some reason.

Dee: He looks so much better, doesn't he? What is that?

Charlie: I don't—you know what it is? I—I generally, I don't eat dark meat.

Dee: No, I prefer the light meat. I always have.

Charlie: Yeah, so it's not that guy.

Dee: No, it has nothing to do with that. It's—the problem is I'm gonna have a really hard time if we're both cannibals and we're racists...

Charlie: We're not, Dee. Cannibalism? Racism, Dee? That's—that's not for us. You know, those are the decisions that are best left to the suits at Washington, OK? We're just here to eat some dude.

shecky | October 30, 2008, 11:54am | #

Do they employ any non-liberals at The Atlantic?

Liberal media conspiracy, yes.


Douthat and Ambinder strike me as the conservatives, since Sullivan moved to Democratic support a few years ago. Though he still fancies himself a Tory style conservative. I could be wrong about Ambinder, though.

But does it even matter? The idea that the McCain ad may have changed to be possibly less offensive would indicate that there may be a few sensitive new age guys working for the GOP, regardless who pointed out the dog whistle.

Lamar | October 30, 2008, 11:55am | #

I wonder if race is the reason that I have yet to see a decent parody of Obama.

joe | October 30, 2008, 11:56am | #

Here you go, SIV.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_buck16.3d67d4a.html

Sorry I forgot to mention the ribs.

So, creech, what are the odds that future criticisms of President Obama's policies will, from some quarters, incorporate racism, as the above mailer?

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 11:57am | #

"What are the odds that future criticisms of President Obama's policies will, in some quarters are least, be labelled racist?"

They already are. Even Bill Maher the other night on his show, Real Time, was talking about it. He was saying that an Obama presidency was going to suck for comedians because it was so hard to make fun of him. He doesn't fit the typical stereotypes (fat, lazy, stupid etc) and the fact that he is black makes it even worse. Because liberals where so afraid to laugh at anything that has something to do with race for fear of being "racist." As Bill put it, "Just because I am making fun of George Bush, doesn't mean I am making fun of all....retarded people."

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 11:58am | #

What are the odds that future criticisms of President Obama's policies will, in some quarters are least, be labelled racist?

100% for your suspicion. Those quarters will be almost every major news outlet in the Western world.

John | October 30, 2008, 12:00pm | #

"So, creech, what are the odds that future criticisms of President Obama's policies will, from some quarters, incorporate racism, as the above mailer?"

If Obama wins all criticism of him or his policies will be branded by the media and his supporters as racist. Any dip in his approval ratings will be interpreted as a return to the racist bad old days. The term "racist code word" will become a way to stop all criticism of the President and the government in general.

Geotpf | October 30, 2008, 12:00pm | #

There are some things that, in fact, you can say about a white guy that you probably don't want to say about a black guy. And yes, that might be being overly sensitive, although it is in the attacker's best interests to phrase it in a way that can't be construed racially, even if that wasn't the intent.

And then there are things like joe's example that really are racist.

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 12:01pm | #

When is that tape of Sen. Obama toasting the mouthpiece of the PLO, from around seven years ago or so going to come out? Anybody here at reason worked for the LA Times since then who could shed some light on this issue?

John | October 30, 2008, 12:02pm | #

The first time Obama wants to go to war and anyone objects it will be "will the American people be willing to follow a black President to war?" The rethoric writes itself.

Elemenope | October 30, 2008, 12:03pm | #

Original story reported here.

Since joe is lazy with the embedding links thing.

shecky | October 30, 2008, 12:03pm | #

It was in California.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-foodstamps17-2008oct17,0,2506591.story


Interesting thing about this was that the spoof food stamp was a spoof itself of Republican racists, which didn't seem to register on the folks who used it for the GOP flyer.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_gopwomen23.40e45d8.html

John | October 30, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Guy,

I have been sending that story to hit and run of about a week now. They won't touch it. It is an interesting story. It touches on the election and the big media and the whole issue of how the big media doesn't seem to want to go with interesting stories that would up circulation sometimes(like the Edwards case). But they won't touch it. Won't blog on it. I wonder why.

Ska | October 30, 2008, 12:04pm | #

They should have used the word swindle. White people swindle. Hmmm....maybe it's too anti-semitic.


Priest and a rabbi walk down the street. The priest asks "Wanna fuck those boys?"
The rabbi asks "Out of what?"

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 12:07pm | #

Slightly OT:

While we are on the topic of racism and all, does anyone else see this ad for "Afro-Romance" at the top of the page? This ad is great, a site completely devoted to interracial love that has the slogan (and this is my favorite part) "Where love is more than skin deep"

Mo | October 30, 2008, 12:07pm | #

Do they employ any non-liberals at The Atlantic?

Ross Douthat

P Brooks | October 30, 2008, 12:08pm | #

Priest and a rabbi walk down the street. The priest asks "Wanna fuck those boys?"
The rabbi asks "Out of what?"

A+

SIV | October 30, 2008, 12:09pm | #

The Republican Party in some southern state

joe,

That was in CALIFORNIA. Are you running for Miss Teen South Carolina?

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:10pm | #

I guess all the Jesse Jackson impersonations I've seen on SNL over the years were just figments of my imagination, because everyone is afraid to impersonate a black politician.

I guess the coverage of the Khalidi story on Olberman and Maddow last night was my imagination, too.

Episiarch | October 30, 2008, 12:10pm | #

Priest and a rabbi walk down the street. The priest asks "Wanna fuck those boys?"
The rabbi asks "Out of what?"

A+

Seconded.

LGF Fan | October 30, 2008, 12:10pm | #

The big PLO sympathizer story is just Too Hot for the MSM.

Mo | October 30, 2008, 12:11pm | #

When is that tape of Sen. Obama toasting the mouthpiece of the PLO, from around seven years ago or so going to come out? Anybody here at reason worked for the LA Times since then who could shed some light on this issue?

You mean the one that the McCain chaired IRI funded?

BTW, the reason the tape's not being released is because the reporter promised the source that he wouldn't release the tape. If the reporter goes back on this, no source will share anything confidential with the person. It's the whole idea of maintaining reputation or you lose business.

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:11pm | #

See, I knew I could get you to read the link, SIV.

So. Anything to say? They're just criticizing him for being a redistributionist, right? Legitimate policy criticisms can't be racist, right?

SIV | October 30, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Liberal mindset:

Steal = Black

Obama fried chicken and watermelon food stamps= South

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:13pm | #

You mean the one that the McCain chaired IRI funded?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The whole "democracy promotion in the Arab world" thing - you know, which was allegedly the central plank of Republican foreign policy for the past seven years - goes right out the window when the chance comes to tie a Democrat to an Arab, eh?

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:15pm | #

Aw, poor SIV, his buddies got caught, so now he has to play dumb.

shecky | October 30, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Does the McCain campaign really want the tape released? It provides more ammunition as a mystery, and likely a complete yawn if revealed.

LGF Fan | October 30, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Liberals never criticize the Real Racists!

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:16pm | #

The irony of course is that the seniors who are on SSI are actually robing everyone else.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:18pm | #

The irony of course is that the seniors who are on SSI are actually robing everyone else.

This.

Geotpf | October 30, 2008, 12:20pm | #

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 12:01pm | #

When is that tape of Sen. Obama toasting the mouthpiece of the PLO, from around seven years ago or so going to come out? Anybody here at reason worked for the LA Times since then who could shed some light on this issue?

You mean the guy that a Republican group that McCain was the head of gave half a million dollars to? That guy?

vanya | October 30, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Criticisms of a black man for being radical have nothing to do with him being black.

But if that black man is clearly NOT a radical,then yes, it is not illogical to assume that those criticisms are at some level motivated by racism. No one calls McCain a radical, (and he's not a radical), but he's certainly associated with many people, and religious figures, just as far right of the mainstream as Wright and Ayers are left of it.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:21pm | #

BDB,

This?

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Liberal mindset:

Steal = Black

So the theory is that the McCain campaign changed the ad because they wanted to appeal to liberals. You know, those swing-voting liberals they're going after in the last two weeks of the campaign.

Face it, SIV. You're out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. The McCain camp realized this was unfortunate terminology that would play badly with the public, but I guess to someone who thinks that ordinary Americans really like Sarah Palin, John McCain's advertising team and the swing voters they don't want to offend count as liberals, too.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Seward--

It means what you said is 100% correct.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Well, he's not out of touch with REAL America.

John | October 30, 2008, 12:27pm | #

Why would the source give the tape but say "don't release it"? That makes no sense. Further, the LA Times went back on its word to a source and released and incriminating tape of Arnold a couple of years ago. They didn't seem to concerned then. If this guy is so wonderful, the what is the big deal about releasing a tape of Obama toasting him?

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:29pm | #

BDB,

Thanks.

joe,

All things being equal, being out of touch with the vast majority of Americans is not by itself a bad thing.

Mo | October 30, 2008, 12:30pm | #

John,

The LA Times isn't a monolith. Releasing or not releasing the tape is the reporter's perogative. I'm guessing there were different purposes. As to why not to release it, maybe the tape makes it easy to identifier the leaker? I don't know. Why would the guy with the Arnold tape not want it released? You didn't question that guy's motives.

Mo | October 30, 2008, 12:33pm | #

If the LA Times were in the tank as much as Guy, SIV and John think, why would they even mention the existence of the tape and describe what the tape's contents were?

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Seward,

Heh. Indeed.

Didn't the IRI, chaired by John McCain, give Khalidi's group the $million AFTER the going-away party took place?

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:35pm | #

It is really, really pathetic how the Republicans are looking for the OneBigStory that will destroy Obama.

SIV | October 30, 2008, 12:36pm | #

joe,

Are you still trying to cover up your lie?
Or just your knee-jerk bigotry?

joe | October 30, 2008, 11:50am | #
The Republican Party in some southern state sent out a mailer that was supposed to be a "Barack Obama Food Stamp Dollar," complete with pictures of fried chicken, Kool-Aid, and watermelon.

Terrible, racist liberal that I am, I actually didn't pretend not to understand what they were doing.

Reinmoose | October 30, 2008, 12:38pm | #

You've got to love the AfroRomance.com ad popping up on this page.
I love targeted advertising

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:39pm | #

joe,

I have no idea who the IRI are or who Khalidi is.

BDB,

Well, the drunk driving story may have depressed Bush's numbers in 2000, so they may be pursuing that line (if that is indeed what they are doing) in light of that history.

I really wish they would instead take Obama to task for his economic proposals and discuss what is problematic about them.

Boston | October 30, 2008, 12:40pm | #

It is really, really pathetic how the Republicans are looking for the OneBigStory that will destroy Obama.

Almost as pathetic as KJLo's constant poll cherry picking with a "we're still in this guys...right...guys...anybody here?"

Almost

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Seward--

I agree, and do it in a way that's not an insult to people's intelligence (Joe the Plumber, Tito the Builder, Sonic the Hedgehog!)

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:42pm | #

SIV, your tears are so yummy and sweet.

So, still nothing say about your assertion that Democrats are imagining racism?

I didn't think so. Better to throw out some chaff about THE REAL BIGOTS because I got the state wrong.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:42pm | #

Boston--

Look at the archives. In 2006 K-LO was convinced that Santorum was going to pull an upset, right up to the Monday before the election.

He got crushed.

"There are no Americans in Baghdad..."

SIV | October 30, 2008, 12:44pm | #

The McCain camp realized this was unfortunate terminology that would play badly with the public

The risk of running an attack that the media and intelligentsia view as racist is extremely high.

More liberal mindset:

Public="Media and intelligentsia"

How very democratic of them.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:44pm | #

BDB,

If they went down fighting for limited government that would be a pretty honorable way to finish.

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:44pm | #

I think bringing up "food stamps" to make the point about redistribution was especially cute.

They're going to rob people like Joe the Plumber to pay for food stamps.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:45pm | #

But they didn't, they're going down fighting for ignorant populist B.S. and social conservatism.

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:45pm | #

Food stamps to buy fried chicken, ribs, and watermelon.

Oh, and make sure you put a picture of Obama right in the middle.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Didn't you say it was southern just to get SIV to click the link?

anarch | October 30, 2008, 12:47pm | #

the seniors who are on SSI are actually robing everyone else.

Inducting everyone else into the Klan? Not me they're not, no Siree!

Anyway, these are dark times.

Can I say "dark times" here?

Happy Jack | October 30, 2008, 12:48pm | #

When is that tape of Sen. Obama toasting the mouthpiece of the PLO

Do you have a link to a newspaper article where he is identified as the spokesman for the PLO?

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Just for fun, let's reacap all the BigStories that were supposed to destroy Obama:

--Rev. Wright
--"Bitter"
--White Working Class Voters
--Rev. Wright Part II
--Birth certificate
--"Whitey" tape
--"Clebrity"
--Tire Gauge
--PUMAs
--Greek Columns
--Sarah Palin
--Lipstick on a Pig
--Bill Ayers
--"Spread the Wealth/Joe the Plumber
--Ashley Todd
--And now, PLO Spokesman tape

Did I miss anything?

SIV | October 30, 2008, 12:52pm | #

joe,

I didn't make that argument.I just called you out for....well what was it? a lie or bigotry?

That is why the Republican mailers we receive in the south associate the democrat Party candidates with Massachusetts.It works better than France because it is so true.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:52pm | #

joe,

Isn't at least some of the justication for the Food Stamp program that it will help American farmers?

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Oh yeah, I forgot about ACORN.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:53pm | #

anarch,

Good one. :) Er, "robbing."

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 12:55pm | #

joe, back to the original point: do you believe that the term "rob" was a dog whistle?

I don't blame you for having disgust when dog whistlers deny that's what they're doing. I'm just not convinced that's the case here.

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 12:55pm | #

BDB, in all fairness, ALL of that + McCain is probably the only reason this election is as close as it is in the first place.

Some Guy | October 30, 2008, 12:55pm | #

It's hard to prove this stuff, but I think the best data point is this: Where's the Jeremiah Wright TV ad? If McCain doesn't run one on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday, he's punted on the most explosive racial problem Obama ever had. Why would he do that unless he's convinced that the backlash would be greater than the impact on Obama?

Because it has already convinced everyone it will convinced, and because Obama has probably already created an ad about Palin's crazy preacher issues that he can get on the air as soon as McCain runs a Wright ad.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 12:56pm | #

BDB,

For better or worse, I suspect that if the Wright story had broken prior to Super Tuesday it would have broken his campaign. Whether that would have been a fair outcome I guess is up for debate. Timing is everything.

joe | October 30, 2008, 12:56pm | #

Oh my goodness, what have we here?

SIV | October 16, 2008, 11:31pm | #

Joe the Plumber was known before the debate.
He was all over the 'net as Obama tipped his hand in answering his question.Obama wasn't at his own house in Chicago or some tony neighborhood in San Francisco or Manhattan. He was in a working class subdivision of Toledo, Ohio and he tells some blue collar guy in a dirty T-shirt asking about Obama's tax policy that he intends to SPREAD HIS WEALTH AROUND. I'm not even gonna touch the racial angle.


BDB | October 16, 2008, 11:33pm | #

There's a racial angle? WTF? On what planet?

BDB | October 16, 2008, 11:38pm | #

Srssly, there's a racial angle? O rly? REALLY? Cause I'm not seeing it. Is this one of those "dog whistles" they talk about?

joe | October 16, 2008, 11:49pm | #

I'm always accused of being overly-sensitive about racial issues, but it never occured to me that there was a racial angle.

SIV, you need to get yourself one of those fancy new bags. The ones that keep the cats inside.


Elemenope | October 17, 2008, 12:40am | #

And what's this about a racial angle?


SIV | October 17, 2008, 1:00am | #

Welfare has a racial angle.

Obama in a presumably predominately white working class neighborhood telling a potentially undecided working class swing State voter he intends to spread the citizen's "wealth" around.
Obama was using the codewords the wrong way.

Those darn Democrats, alway imagining a racial angle in straighforward policy criticism! The Republicans would never do that.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:57pm | #

TAO--

I don't think it's particularly close. But I can't prove a negative (this race would not be this close without it), so you may be right. But we will never know.

But I think when NC is turning blue and GA is a tossup on RCP, that's pretty good for a Democrat.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:57pm | #

Seward, I agree. There's an element of luck that Obama has. Reagan kind of had it, too. Nothing sticks to him and the attacks all come out at the wrong time.

SIV | October 30, 2008, 12:59pm | #

re: Wright

Somebody in Hillary Clinton's campaign wasn't doing their oppo research.If they were the Wright tape would have been released and blamed on Republicans.

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 1:00pm | #

I know everyone thinks that all of the stories about Obama had flamed out already, but if McCain's only shot in the campaign was to be aggressively nasty from the start and just rip Obama to shreds.

McCain was weak in this campaign.

BDB - sure, there's no proving it, but I can't help but think that all of those things must have had SOME kind of impact.

FWIW, I stand by my assertion that Mitt Romney never should have dropped out.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 1:02pm | #

I know one thing, I am ready for this election to be over.

Abdul | October 30, 2008, 1:02pm | #

New McCain ad: Obama's here to eat watermelon and rob seniors, and he's all out of watermelon.

Hey, why's the focus group hate this?

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 1:02pm | #

As an additional aside, the disappointment post-Obama honeymoon is going to be sweeet...there's nothing tastier than the tears of dumb-but-earnest undergrads and hipsters.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:03pm | #

TAO,

I'd tend to think this was just poor word choice, because they backtracked.

Look at poor, flailing SIV up there. If they were doing this on purpose, they'd be pretending to be all huffy about the mean ol' liberals "playing the race card," and go on and on about how they're always being persecuted by the media.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:03pm | #

TAO--

Almost as sweet as seeing Republicans get stomped.

SIV | October 30, 2008, 1:04pm | #

joe,

I bet Obama wishes he could take that one back too. When did he last take a question from the friendly media,much less a real voter?

John | October 30, 2008, 1:05pm | #

What happens to race relations when people start to hate this guy's guts like they did Carter? What happens if his Presidency is a failure. I am sure people like Joe out of great concern for the good of the country not drop the race card to deflect criticism. Others I doubt will be so patriotic.

The danger of playing the racecard to deflect criticism or ordinary political attack is that people may get tired of it after a while, especially if Obama starts to get really unpopular. People will get tired of being called racists and every political debate will become a racial debate. In that environment, people might start to really become racist. I agree that we are pretty close to a post racial society these days. But, there is no gaurentee that we will stay there. Telling one side that criticizing the other is racist very long, is a pretty good way to ensure that we stop being a post racial society.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Yeah SIV, Joe the Plumber was so good that...uh...so good that McCain is in trouble in his home state!

SIV | October 30, 2008, 1:05pm | #

I know one thing, I am ready for this election to be over.

I'd like to see it drag on longer than 2000.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:05pm | #

*Waits for "the polls are garbage"/"Harry Truman!!*

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:06pm | #

SIV | October 30, 2008, 12:59pm | #

re: Wright

Somebody in Hillary Clinton's campaign wasn't doing their oppo research.If they were the Wright tape would have been released and blamed on Republicans.

Then talked about welfare, and whined like an old fanbelt if anyone dared point out what they were doing.

libertymike | October 30, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Joe, Elemenope- Obama $10 food stamp-

Tempest in a teapot. The proverbial pimple on the penis of a protozoa.

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 1:08pm | #

joe - so, the answer is "no, this wasn't intentional dog whistling".

BDB - yeah, I've decided to be really positive about this election. The GOP can take the licks it so richly deserves and liberals will simultaneously be disappointed when Obama starts another war or something.

Don't hate me, man; it's all I've got.

libertymike | October 30, 2008, 1:09pm | #

Joe-1:06

Kinda like the Dukakis campaign releasing the Biden attack video and blaming the Gephardt campaign? Do you remember? Reminds me of how sleazy the Brookline Bolzhevik was.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 1:09pm | #

BDB,

Well, there is a very outside chance that the polls are in fact garbage. That's what that whole 95% confidence level is about. I still Obama will win with a comfortable margin.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:11pm | #

Yeah SIV, Joe the Plumber was so good that...uh...so good that McCain is in trouble in his home state!

And Obama now has a double-digit lead on the question of who would do a better job on taxes. Before Mr. Wurtzelbacher, they were tied.

There are a lot of things to love about this campaign. The complete and utter failure of the efforts to play what SIV calls a "racial angle" is my favorite, though.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:12pm | #

No, my favorite is the death of the 1960s as a campaign issue.

anarch, apologizing in advance | October 30, 2008, 1:15pm | #

But for all I know, someone here might enjoy this.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:16pm | #

libertymike,

I'm not claiming the racist "policy criticism" in that mailer is important, just illustrative.

TAO, right, that's my impression. Not deliberate, so much as bungling.

libertymike @ 1:09:

I don't follow. How, exactly, is attributing a leak to someone else like using codewords to make racist appeals?

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 1:19pm | #

Does the McCain campaign really want the tape released? It provides more ammunition as a mystery, and likely a complete yawn if revealed.

Idunno, I am not in the McCain campaign and I didn't vote for him. Does not look like the LA Times takes their "marching orders" from that campaign either. But I want it released just like it would have been released if it was McCain or Palin toasting a KKK guy at one of their rallies (Robert Byrd, David Duke, etc.)

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 1:21pm | #

And why don't I get the hottie Black chick dating ad!?!?!? I was even asking about this the other day.

[kicks pebble]

libertymike | October 30, 2008, 1:22pm | #

Joe-

I was playing off of SIV's post that you quoted in your 1:06 post, i.e., Hillary's campaign releasing the Wright video and blaming the republicans.

SIV | October 30, 2008, 1:23pm | #

joe,

The post we are commenting on is about the success of playing a "racial angle" in this campaign.

Obama is winning, and part of the reason is that it's really hard in an increasingly post-racial America to run against a black candidate and use the arguments you'd deploy against a white candidate.

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 1:25pm | #

Guy Montag:
"And why don't I get the hottie Black chick dating ad!?!?!? I was even asking about this the other day.

[kicks pebble]"


Well the ad features a black man and a white chick, although I am sure there are black chicks on the site. The hilariousness is in the slogan: "Where love is more than skin deep." That slogan on a site completely devoted to interracial couples? The irony is amusing.

FatDrunkAndStupid | October 30, 2008, 1:25pm | #

I think a lot of the "risk" involved in making a statement the media might interpret as racist revolves entirely around the candidate himself. McCain is vulnerable to such attacks because he traffics in the ideology of the elites. Those are the people who are most vulnerable to such attacks. The less you care in the first place, the less effective such a tactic becomes. A candidate like Jesee Ventura wouldn't have to temper his rhetoric at all. Palin has made numerous comments that would normally illicit cries of "racism" from the left but her disdain for cosmotarian culture immunizes her from attack completely.

A cultural analogy to this would be Imus vs Stern. Imus courts the elites, and they brought him down. Stern could care less about the elites, and as such he is allowed to use the word "nigger" with impunity and make as many blatantly racist jokes as he wants.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:27pm | #

libertymike,

Ah, gotcha.

Guy sez: But I want it released just like it would have been released if it was McCain or Palin toasting a KKK guy at one of their rallies

John McCain authorized a $1 million grant to the equivalent of the KKK?

libertymike | October 30, 2008, 1:27pm | #

Anarch-

No need to apologize.

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 1:27pm | #

Kaiser,

Ah, so I don't qualify for that site. I betcha using my real name with the long vowel on the end will be pointless too.

Geotpf | October 30, 2008, 1:28pm | #

I get No on Prop 8 ads. I'll bet everybody with an IP traceable to California does.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:30pm | #

SIV | October 30, 2008, 1:23pm | #

joe,

The post we are commenting on is about the success of playing a "racial angle" in this campaign.

Hence, my glee at how miserably you are failing, and what it bodes for the future.

libertymike | October 30, 2008, 1:32pm | #

Joe-

BTW-In my book, Dukakis remains one of the dirtiest pols of all time.

anarch | October 30, 2008, 1:34pm | #

libertymike, but I'm white! Isn't that reason enough to be always apologizing?

John | October 30, 2008, 1:37pm | #

No it doesn't Joe. The race baiters will never go away. They have nothing better to do.

Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, in his remarks at a recent panel discussion at my alma mater. Ogletree, Obama’s top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is “biracial,” his election won’t prove that racism has receded. White America won’t vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama’s election is possible only because he’s partly white. The ABA Journal predicts that Ogletree, who has long advocated race-based reparations, will be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration.

Legal commentator Walter Olson notes that Ogletree has attracted controversy over his association with Al Sharpton and history of plagiarism.

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/10/29/youre-still-a-racist-obama-advisor-says/

Every criticism of Obama will be evidence of racism and failing that, Obama is half white so even support of him is not evidence that racism has ended.

Geotpf | October 30, 2008, 1:37pm | #

BDB | October 30, 2008, 12:57pm | #

Seward, I agree. There's an element of luck that Obama has. Reagan kind of had it, too. Nothing sticks to him and the attacks all come out at the wrong time.

Luck is a part of skill. Or, to phrase it another way, if one is sufficiently skilled, one makes their own luck. Obama's campaign, on a technical level, has been nearly perfect. Such a contrast to the bunch of boobs who ran Kerry's campaign four years ago.

LGF Fan | October 30, 2008, 1:39pm | #

Olgetree is our talking point of the day.

Geotpf | October 30, 2008, 1:43pm | #

Ah, Olgetree is the next boogieman. Good to know.

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 1:43pm | #

"A cultural analogy to this would be Imus vs Stern. Imus courts the elites, and they brought him down. Stern could care less about the elites, and as such he is allowed to use the word "nigger" with impunity and make as many blatantly racist jokes as he wants."

Wasn't Imus a shock jock as well? I understand your point but we shouldn't hold various people to different standards just because of their lifestyle. Personally I think political correctness is a joke, I haven't heard anything that has offended me in my lifetime. Also didn't Imus say "nappy headed hos?" I don't see anything racist about that statement quite frankly. (I could be wrong about this because I don't know what Imus said exactly I am just going off of memory here)

Also since when is it wrong to be offended? If we changed something or made new laws/rules every time someone got offended this would be one shitty place to live.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:44pm | #

I've already seen the Olgetree thing on every single blog.

Man, if the McCain campaign had as good control over their message as Republican right wing bloggers have, they'd be winning.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 1:45pm | #

Geotpf,

Or, to phrase it another way, if one is sufficiently skilled, one makes their own luck.

Since you are basically paraphrasing Machiavelli, I will just state that Machiavelli argues that 'fortune' (to use his term) cannot not always be mastered.

Seward | October 30, 2008, 1:45pm | #

BDB,

Ogletree? Apparently I don't get out enough.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:47pm | #

Go to NRO Online, the Corner. The story started there, and once the Corner (or sometimes Drudge) starts a story it's parroted endlessly by every single Republican blog and blog commenter. I don't know how they do it, but they have incredible message control.

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 1:51pm | #

BDB - that's why I don't believe that the GOP is dead. When the GOP really believes in a candidate, they are SCARY disciplined.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:53pm | #

John, you are so full of shit.

No it doesn't Joe. The race baiters will never go away. They have nothing better to do.

Well, the racists will never completely go away, but watching the race-baiters fail so miserably at trying to bring down Barack Obama will probably dissuade such scab-picking in the future.

BTW, even your own spin on Ogletree's statements doesn't add up to "even if you vote for Obama, you're still a racist."

You're such a pathetic hack. We have almost two solid years of racist appeals hurled at Barack Obama, and the only racial dynamic you can think or care about is whether anyone dares to talk about that.

You know what I would do if I intended to hurl a whole bunch of racist invective at a candidate, but was afraid of backlash? I'd write about how terrible it is that people are so sensitive, and say that baseless accusations of racism are destroying the country.

THEN I'd send out the flyer with the black guy's face next to pictures of ribs, watermelon, Kool Aid and fried chicken. That's what I'd do.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:55pm | #

I've already seen the Olgetree thing on every single blog.

Every time I give John the benefit of the doubt that he's bringing up an original point he's come up with by himself, I'm disappointed.

Hack.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:55pm | #

TAO--

Yeah. Liberals can sometimes manage to be that disciplined (the "seven houses" meme comes to mind) but conservatives are much better at it.

Libertarians, outside of the Paultards (who is a Republican after all), never manage it ever.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:56pm | #

BTW, why did everybody stop talking about ACORN at exactly the same time?

One day, the usual suspects are bellowing about it on every single thread. The next, down the memory hole.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 1:56pm | #

I was thinking TallDave of Many Names would be the first to bring it up, or Guy Montag.

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 1:57pm | #

joe - probably a measure of "stickiness"; if the talking point doesn't stick, the Machine drops it and tries another.

joe | October 30, 2008, 1:58pm | #

You're probably right, TAO.

I guess the Khalidi story didn't stick.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 2:00pm | #

Anyone want to hazard to guess what the Machine Talking Point will be the day after the election?

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 2:01pm | #

BDB - no talking points post-election. The only time the discipline applies is election years. After that, there's going to be a lot of infighting.

I'm seriously considering attending CPAC this year just to see what a fiasco it's going to be.

Look for united talking points against Obama around March or so.

Just Plain Brian | October 30, 2008, 2:05pm | #

A cultural analogy to this would be Imus vs Stern. Imus courts the elites, and they brought him down. Stern could care less about the elites, and as such he is allowed to use the word "nigger" with impunity and make as many blatantly racist jokes as he wants.

Bad analogy, there's a world of difference between Stern and Imus - when Stern would get angry at Robin Quivers on the air, he might yell at her. When Imus would get angry at Robin Quivers on the air (which happened sometimes when they both worked at WNBC), he'd yell racial slurs at her.

Stern gets away with jokes because it's clear there's no hate behind them. It's like the difference between "Blazing Saddles" and blackface minstrel shows.

Ravac | October 30, 2008, 2:09pm | #

One could complain about Hillary Clinton's political style and capacity for making enemies by saying she is unpleasant, stubborn, quick to anger, and dismissive.

Or one could say she is shrewish, shrill, hysterical, and bitchy.

Isn't that simply reframing? ;-)

Mo | October 30, 2008, 2:10pm | #

Ogletree: Person that no one heard of until right wing websites promoted him.

Can't you find anyone that says anything idiotic? Is the McCain campaign racist because of the Obama bucks? Do they take the blame for equating Obama to Hitler?

BDB - that's why I don't believe that the GOP is dead. When the GOP really believes in a candidate, they are SCARY disciplined.

That's why I don't buy the whole "media is in the tank for Democrats" thing. Compare the message discipline of Fox News with that of conservative outlets and it's word for word the same. Whereas Mother Jones and MSNBC (with the exception of Maddow and Olberman) are all over the map comparitively.

joe | October 30, 2008, 2:12pm | #

Does anyone want to stake their reputation on the theory that John accurately reported the substance of Ogletree's remarks?

BDB | October 30, 2008, 2:12pm | #

By Monday they're gonna be saying Obama is for reparations, or that Robert Mugabe is his father.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 2:13pm | #

Joe--

It was copied literally word for word from the post on The Corner.

Mo | October 30, 2008, 2:14pm | #

no talking points post-election. The only time the discipline applies is election years. After that, there's going to be a lot of infighting.

I disagree. The GOP was very disciplined for pretty much the entire Bush administration. Remember when every White House member, Republican politician and conservative commentator would use the exact same phrase to describe a situation and cover it the same way (esp. during Iraq and after 9-11). I think that was true up until Rush said that he was through carrying water for the GOP. That was the signal for everyone to wait until the general election to get back on talking points because Bush's number were so far in the toilet.

John | October 30, 2008, 2:15pm | #

"Well, the racists will never completely go away, but watching the race-baiters fail so miserably at trying to bring down Barack Obama will probably dissuade such scab-picking in the future."


And when he does go down it will be because the race baiters finally succeeded won't it Joe? Every attack on the guy is dismissed as racist. Socialism is just code word for black and so forth. When his popularity does fall, like every President's does or worse yet if he is elected but then gets kicked out of office in 2012, it will be because the race baiters finally won won't it Joe? Essentially, anything short of unadulterated love for Obama will be played as a return to America's racist past. People like you will ensure that any positive effect on race relations an Obama election results in will quickly be erased. You are going to use the "youre just racist" stick until it finally breaks and the country at large is going to be a lot worse off for it.

You think people are bitter about race now. Wait until they start selling the myth that things were once better when Obama was President but the race baiters took it away. Yeah, that will produce a lot of racial harmony.

Mo | October 30, 2008, 2:16pm | #

Actually joe, he accurately copy and pasted Hans Bader, sans quotes. This was also quoted in the Corner.

Bader:

Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, in his remarks at a recent panel discussion at my alma mater. Ogletree, Obama’s top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is “biracial,” his election won’t prove that racism has receded. White America won’t vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama’s election is possible only because he’s partly white. The ABA Journal predicts that Ogletree, who has long advocated race-based reparations, will be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration.

Legal commentator Walter Olson notes that Ogletree has attracted controversy over his association with Al Sharpton and history of plagiarism.

John:

Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, in his remarks at a recent panel discussion at my alma mater. Ogletree, Obama’s top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is “biracial,” his election won’t prove that racism has receded. White America won’t vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama’s election is possible only because he’s partly white. The ABA Journal predicts that Ogletree, who has long advocated race-based reparations, will be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration.

Legal commentator Walter Olson notes that Ogletree has attracted controversy over his association with Al Sharpton and history of plagiarism.

The Angry Optimist | October 30, 2008, 2:17pm | #

Mo - I agree, and I think after the election (when McCain loses), Rush is going to go nuts again about the GOP for the months running up to the inauguration.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 2:19pm | #

Man, they got all the GOP bug-a-boos there.

Ivy League Academic--Check!
Reparations--Check!
Al Sharpton--Check!
A "real racist"--Check!

John | October 30, 2008, 2:25pm | #

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/10/29/youre-still-a-racist-obama-advisor-says/

It is from openmarket.org. I pasted the link. Mo are you and Joe retarded or something? I never claimed it was my language, thus the link.

LGF Fan | October 30, 2008, 2:26pm | #

Our mighty copy and paste army will defeat BHO!

Seward | October 30, 2008, 2:28pm | #

BDB,

I am going to push back a tiny bit and note that what the majority of people hang on when they decide to vote for isn't terribly different (from the standpoint of whether it deals with policy proposals, philosophy, etc.) than the stuff shouted out about ACORN, etc. Call me cynical I guess.

Simon Lefaux | October 30, 2008, 2:28pm | #

Really, has Rev. Wright said anything that hasn't been said at most Libertarian or Ron Paul meetings? Except, of course, the stuff that was in defense of the black community.

Mo | October 30, 2008, 2:33pm | #

On a more hilarious note, 3 out of 4 white supremacist leaders, interviewed by Esquire, are supporting Obama (including a guy that was on the Geraldo show where his nose was broken. The black supremacist they interviewed is voting for McCain. This article is full of win, especially the "Likes" and "Dislikes".

John,

Most people attempt to distinguish quotes from their own word by putting quotation marks, italicizing of blockquoting it off. Rather than mixing it into your own commentary with a link at the end of a comment. As a lawyer, you should know that.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 2:34pm | #

Criticisms of a black man for being radical have nothing to do with him being black.

Wouldn't that depend on how the criticisms of phrased?

The PC police would lose their favorite pastime, finding racism, sexism, looksism, and specieism in every public utterance. We'll just run it past the ladies at Feministing or the folks at the NAACP to get the all clear.

One could complain about Hillary Clinton's political style and capacity for making enemies by saying she is unpleasant, stubborn, quick to anger, and dismissive.

Or one could say she is shrewish, shrill, hysterical, and bitchy.

Hillary is shrewish, shrill, hysterical and bitchy. All words commonly applied to males as well. But if you use them to denigrate a woman, you are sexist. Yeah, they are more insulting, clearer and more effective at conveying the impression you wish to than using "unpleasant, stubborn, quick to anger, and dismissive". Isn't that the fuckin' point?

America is turning into land of easily feelings bruised pussies.

gerbils | October 30, 2008, 2:37pm | #

I get it now! John and joe are the same person!

It makes too much sense to be false, how else could they have such synchronious disagreements.

Fess up John/joe I know you are one!

Elemenope | October 30, 2008, 2:38pm | #

Fess up John/joe, I know you are one!

If you called them Janus, you could preserve the "J" theme.

;)

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 2:39pm | #

"America is turning into land of easily feelings bruised pussies."


I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately in combination with the PC police and people who are part of some minority playing the "minority card" every time something doesn't go their way we are just in store for much more of it in the future.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 2:40pm | #

What are the odds that future criticisms of President Obama's policies will, in some quarters are least, be labelled racist?
A gazillion squared to one.

gerbils | October 30, 2008, 2:40pm | #

lmnop, thats so perfect!

Ravac | October 30, 2008, 2:42pm | #

Strike the J.

BDB | October 30, 2008, 2:42pm | #

That Esquire article is laugh out loud funny. Just when I think I have America all figured out, I read something like that...

Elemenope | October 30, 2008, 2:43pm | #

Hillary is shrewish, shrill, hysterical and bitchy. All words commonly applied to males as well.

Only by people who have no awareness of (or don't care) what the origins of those words are or the subtexts that they carry from those origins. I am of the school of thought that synonymous words differ in meaning slightly so as to be able to accurately and effectively convey shades of meaning. That purpose is ruined when people use words without being cognizant of those gradations.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 2:43pm | #

So, creech, what are the odds that future criticisms of President Obama's policies will, from some quarters, incorporate racism, as the above mailer?

Again, A gazillion squared to one.

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 2:45pm | #

America is turning into land of easily feelings bruised pussies.

Yea, especially the ones who whine about the price of some cheap steak at Giant going up $0.05/lb. and equating that to the massive middle class starving to death.

Just go shop at The Wal*Mart, or eat out more. Jeesh!

prolefeed | October 30, 2008, 2:46pm | #

But Obama is winning, and part of the reason is that it's really hard in an increasingly post-racial America to run against a black candidate and use the arguments you'd deploy against a white candidate.

It isn't post-racial when you can't use the exact same arguments about a black candidate's political philosophy as you do against a white candidate's political philosophy. At best, that's LESS racial.

It'll be post-racial when people quit being so fucking thin-skinned about race and laugh when someone says something that used to be racially offensive, because it'll seem so silly to care about skin melanine levels.

We're getting there in Hawaii -- the rest of the country seems to need to do some serious catching up.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 3:00pm | #

Ogletree, Obama’s top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is “biracial,” his election won’t prove that racism has receded. White America won’t vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama’s election is possible only because he’s partly white.

That's the reason he beat Alan Keyes? Keyes was too dark? I should hve figgered that one out myself.

joe | October 30, 2008, 3:01pm | #

John, getting ready for his dirty work:

People like you will ensure that any positive effect on race relations an Obama election results in will quickly be erased.

You are a disgusting wretch of a human being.

joe | October 30, 2008, 3:02pm | #

I never claimed it was my language, thus the link.

Oh, is that what a link means?

When you paste a link, it's the same thing as putting quotation marks around something.

These kids with their texting - they're always making up new conventions!

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 3:06pm | #

Fess up John/joe, I know you are one!

If you called them Janus, you could preserve the "J" theme.

That was friggin' excellent.

joe | October 30, 2008, 3:06pm | #

Hillary is shrewish, shrill, hysterical and bitchy.

Oh, I get it. It's not racist to say blah blah blah, because black people really are blah blah blah.

Hillary has a number of qualities that could be described using any number of words. Funny how all of the most common ones just happen to be gender-specific, and/or derived from words for women.

All words commonly applied to males as well. I defy you to find an example of a man being called shrewish.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 3:12pm | #

Only by people who have no awareness of (or don't care) what the origins of those words are or the subtexts that they carry from those origins. I am of the school of thought that synonymous words differ in meaning slightly so as to be able to accurately and effectively convey shades of meaning. That purpose is ruined when people use words without being cognizant of those gradations.

The origins of words do not equal meanings of words. I look up etymology whenever I consult a dictionary. To assert that hysterical or shrill as it is used in present day American English has gender connotation is preposterous.

It's what race and sex victimologist students do for their term paper in huckstering 101.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 3:13pm | #

In my previous, the first paragraph is a quote from upthreaqd. My bad.

ETJB | October 30, 2008, 3:27pm | #

I it always interesting when people talk "about race" -- in the context of culture, economics, politics, crime, constitutionalism, faith, media images, etc.

Do some people cry, "racism" (sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.) where it does not really exist or was not intended? Yes.

Yet, who gets to be the final judge and jury over what a candidate says is (explict or coded) racism?

I seen examples of -- what I see are racist or bigoted comments -- in the legal-political context from, basically decent and not so decent, people from all walks of life.

I remember my shock and horror at the comments during the Jenna 6 (sic?) event where people on both sides where saying things that were wildly mean and untruth, if not racist.

Or [for example] the case where some college sports stars were -- apparently -- falsely accused of rape. Plenty of deception and meanness and racial, economic and sexual prejudice to go around.

Or... when I walk into a local GOP office, to get yard signs for a family member, and the locals are going on about how Obama is a Muslim.

Or...people tell me, "Well I am not going to vote for the Independent or minor party candidate, so I really do not want them on the ballot or in the debates."

I think we (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) have a serious problem with the tone and scope of political discussion-debate-discourse.

Much of it goes back to lack of good, non-partisan civic education, and, frankly, the artificial narrowing of the debate to two parties or two (often sound byte polar opposite) views.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 3:27pm | #

Hillary is shrewish, shrill, hysterical and bitchy.

Oh, I get it. It's not racist to say blah blah blah, because black people really are blah blah blah.

Did I say, infer, imply or somehow give any impression that women are "shrewish, shrill, hysterical and bitch"y. No, you dishonest fuck, I did not. If I call a Mexican lazy, maybe it's because I'm convinced that particular Mexican is lazy.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

A hallucination or delusion is seeing things that aren't there. Your constant prattling about race and gender PC makes me sometimes question why the fuck are you so intent on finding offense. Did you get laid once by some lady who admired your "sensitivity" and decided that tenderness and constant worrying about offending others would work again?

Fuck every thin skinned professional victim on the planet. The geezers who take offense at the age shots taken at McCain included. Grow the fuck up!

Kaiser | October 30, 2008, 3:42pm | #

"A hallucination or delusion is seeing things that aren't there. Your constant prattling about race and gender PC makes me sometimes question why the fuck are you so intent on finding offense. Did you get laid once by some lady who admired your "sensitivity" and decided that tenderness and constant worrying about offending others would work again?

Fuck every thin skinned professional victim on the planet. The geezers who take offense at the age shots taken at McCain included. Grow the fuck up!"

I completely agree. The problem is, as I pointed out above here, people aren't willing to take responsibility for themselves. What I mean by that is, every time something doesn't go their way, whether it is because of a joke or a bad review at work etc, they play the minority card. "Oh I am not getting paid as much as he is, obviously it is because I am a woman." or "He called me lazy, clearly it is because I am a mexican." etc etc you get the point. Combine that with the ever growing popularity of being politically correct and you get the current situation we are in. I think it will only get worse.

joe | October 30, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Did I say, infer, imply or somehow give any impression that women are "shrewish, shrill, hysterical and bitch"y.

No, you said it about Hillary Clinton.

If I call a Mexican lazy, maybe it's because I'm convinced that particular Mexican is lazy. And your impression of whether any particular Mexican is lazy can't be influenced by your opinion about Mexicans as a whole? And if you only use the term lazy to refer to Mexicans, as you and lots of other people only or predominately use the terms "shrewish, hysterical, and bitchy" to refer to women, you know what that means?

A hallucination or delusion is seeing things that aren't there. Your constant prattling about race and gender PC makes me sometimes question why the fuck are you so intent on finding offense. Did you get laid once by some lady who admired your "sensitivity" and decided that tenderness and constant worrying about offending others would work again?

Yes, noticing and being offended by racism and sexism is a habit best understood as a psychological problem.

J sub D | October 30, 2008, 5:04pm | #

Did I say, infer, imply or somehow give any impression that women are "shrewish, shrill, hysterical and bitchy".

No, you said it about Hillary Clinton.

Yet your original your reply was

Oh, I get it. It's not racist to say blah blah blah, because black people really are blah blah blah.

implying I somehow denigarted all women, which is why I called you a dishonest fuck.

If I call a Mexican lazy, maybe it's because I'm convinced that particular Mexican is lazy.

And your impression of whether any particular Mexican is lazy can't be influenced by your opinion about Mexicans as a whole?

Nope. I judge people as individuals. Sometimes they fit the stereotype. Not my fault for pointing it out.

And if you only use the term lazy to refer to Mexicans, as you and lots of other people only or predominately use the terms "shrewish, hysterical, and bitchy" to refer to women, you know what that means?

Are willing to back up that assertation, that I refer to women more than men as bitchy, shrewish (an adjective I don't often, if ever, use) or hysterical (one that I do)?

Didn't think so.

Yes, noticing and being offended by racism and sexism is a habit best understood as a psychological problem.

Imagining it where none exists certainly is.

wayne | October 30, 2008, 6:58pm | #

Priest and a rabbi walk down the street. The priest asks "Wanna fuck those boys?"
The rabbi asks "Out of what?"

I am still laughing about this one.

Episiarch's cannibal dialogue was pretty good too.

Maybe somebody could draw a cartoon of a lip-stick-wearing pig routing through the ACORNs under a leafy oak tree.

wayne | October 30, 2008, 7:10pm | #

And if you only use the term lazy to refer to Mexicans,...

No, that's wrong. Spades are lazy too.

Joe, that was a joke meant only to lighten the mood of the board. I realize that only Mexicans are lazy.

dave | October 31, 2008, 10:43am | #

I swear, what is WRONG with these lefties who se EVERYTHING through the prism of race?!?

Arrogance. Sheer, unadulterated hubris.

jtuf | November 3, 2008, 4:50am | #

Well, at least you 1st ammendment means that you can't get thrown in jail for writing something that someone somewhere interprets as racist. Oh no, wait, damn.