Justin Raimondo On The Smearing Of Obama
Antiwar’s Justin Raimondo makes some excellent points regarding the recent attacks on Barack Obama in connection with his attendance of Rev. Jeremiah Wright church and some of the inflammatory things that Wright has said over the years.
Before I provide a quote from the article, which is certainly a must read, I wanted to point something out. What religious leaders have had access to President Bush during his tenure in office and what have some of them said? Do some digging and you’ll find some rather disgusting results.
That said; this portion of Raimando’s piece struck me as extremely well put…
“In the case of Obama, the assault is taking the form of an attack on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the now-retired pastor of Obama’s church whom Obama describes as a religious “mentor” in his autobiography The Audacity of Hope. Again, the basic strategy is to make Obama answer for each and every one of Wright’s pronouncements, no matter how wacky or lame-brained, such as the contention that AIDS was created by the U.S. government. Aside from the logical fallacy inherent in the guilt-by-association tact – after all, Obama didn’t say AIDS was a U.S. government plot, Wright did – implicit in all this is the assumption that all blacks believe the same thing, that they are a collective entity linked by some sort of ethnic consciousness, and, therefore, Obama can and must be held responsible for Wright’s opinions on every subject under the sun, including those he had no knowledge of.
So, what, aside from the AIDS comment, did Wright say that was so terrible? The War Street Journal piece simply quotes these, without offering much of an argument for their iniquitous nature. Here’s Wright on racism and foreign policy:
“We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run, Jesse [Jackson], and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”
Of course, Wright’s contention that “no black man will ever be considered for president” is refuted by the very fact of Obama’s front-runner status. Perhaps only Hillary Clinton – who recently offered Obama the vice presidency, in spite of the fact that he’s ahead of her by every measure – and a few yahoos out in the sticks are stuck in this old mindset. As for the rest, it’s undeniably true. We do have more black men in prison than in college – way more. Racism is alive and well; driving while black is still a dangerous pastime. This country was founded with a near-fatal flaw in the constitutional order, one that permitted slavery to continue for another hundred years. While I don’t agree with everything Wright says in this statement, I don’t see anything that isn’t part of the broad spectrum of popular opinion in this country, though a lot of what he says may be considered out of bounds for the elites.
Kessler, however, is convinced that it is only necessary to repeat what Wright has said: no explanation is really required. In the same vein, he continues citing Wright:
“Mr. Wright thundered on: ‘America is still the No. 1 killer in the world…. We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers…. We bombed Cambodia, Iraq, and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi…. We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.’
But of course the American government is the number-one killer in the world: we pride ourselves on it. Why else would our “defense” budget exceed the military expenditures of all other nations combined? We glory in our ability to kill, and we don’t hesitate to exercise our talents. In Iraq alone, the U.S. invasion has led to as many as a million deaths.
The racial aspect of all this is dramatized, in rather vivid terms, by the Pentagon’s refusal to count Iraqi deaths. Only American casualties are reported, because only Americans matter, as John McCain avers in his rationalization of the war and continued occupation:
“We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me.”
As long as it’s mainly Iraqis being killed, then that’s just fine with McCain. Another war he supported, and continues to valorize, killed, maimed, and traumatized millions of Vietnamese, but the “gooks” – as McCain unapologetically put it – don’t count, either. It was American, not Vietnamese, casualties that triggered our retreat from Southeast Asia. In the Philippines, too, where water-boarding was a routine method of interrogation, we slaughtered thousands, justifying our savagery with the “progressive” (at the time) rhetoric of moral and cultural uplift, the 19th-century equivalent of “it takes a village.” Teddy Roosevelt, McCain’s idol, preached this doctrine and was lionized by the liberals of his era as a great innovator and a heroic figure.
Racism is closely linked to imperialism, and it doesn’t take a genius to understand why. Since, by definition, a policy of conquest means conquering foreigners, and these peoples are often, albeit not always, of another race, it behooves the conqueror to rationalize his aggression in racial terms. “Take up the white man’s burden” – up until very recently, Kipling’s poetic phrase has been the leitmotif and battle cry of the global Anglo hegemon. It was, and is, a world order founded on racism, mercantilism, and militarism, the three pillars of hegemonist thought. Yet the Wall Street Journal has its own version of history and is certainly no critic of mercantilism, either historic or contemporary. In any case, the Journal’s real beef with Wright isn’t mentioned until midway through Kessler’s piece:
“His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, ‘We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic…. We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means….’”
One wonders on what grounds Kessler or the Journal would dispute Wright’s contention; alas, we can only speculate, since no argument is even attempted. The evil of Wright’s remarks is apparently self-evident – except it isn’t.
We have supported Israel unconditionally, in spite of Israel’s defiance on the settlements issue and its continued occupation of conquered territory that imposes what former President Jimmy Carter rightly likens to a system of apartheid. Worse, we have encouraged Israeli aggression, cheering on and actively aiding the invasion of Lebanon and conflating Israel’s right of “self-defense” with a policy of expansionism.
As for branding critics of Israel as anti-Semites, is Kessler really maintaining that this never happens? It’s the smear-of-first-resort of the Israel-first lobby, as professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have recently discovered. Everyone knows that to traduce this terrain is to walk through a political minefield, which is why most American politicians scrupulously avoid it – a testament, by the way, to the trenchancy of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis that the Israel lobby wields an inordinate and ultimately unhealthy influence over the conduct of American foreign policy.
There was a similar brouhaha from those quarters when Obama opined that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The Lobby’s antennae quivered – doesn’t he know who holds the official monopoly on suffering? – and they’ve been on him ever since.
The rest of Kessler’s piece is an extension of the guilt-by-association technique, in which a new factor is added to the Obama = Wright equation: Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. Wright’s church magazine apparently gave Farrakhan some sort of award, so now the equation is Obama = Wright = Farrakhan. This feeds directly into the widely circulated rumor that Obama, having imbibed Islam in Indonesia, is a secret Muslim – a jihadist at heart.
The smear campaign against Obama has just begun. As he wins primary after primary, racking up delegates and leaving Hillary in the electoral dust, these gusts of slanderous invective will take on full gale force. What we are witnessing is the first stage of a calculated attempt to characterize the putative Democratic nominee as a secret Muslim, a black nationalist, and a 3 a.m. threat to hearth and home.
The author of this piece, Kessler, is the head honcho over at Newsmax.com, a site that is the prototypical example of right-wing “movement” hackery. During the Clinton years, it used to run stuff about Vince Foster and the alleged Clinton connection to his death. Today they are shilling for the Clintons, carrying out the widely noted Clintonian scorched-earth strategy of making Obama unelectable, then biding their time until 2012. Talk about strange bedfellows – or, on second thought, not so strange.
Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq, and the fear stems from the fact that campaigning against him will be difficult. Hillary they can handle: she’ll mobilize the troops and weld together the fractured Republican coalition in opposition.
The War Party is in full battle mode, and it is determined to destroy Obama. Will it succeed? Stay tuned…”
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
John Adams on HBO touched on the omission of slavery from the drafting of the constitution the other night. Obama has done well to distance himself from Wright, although some things he has said must be hard to disagree with. They certainly are in my opinion. As usual in politics its all about selective hearing.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Being far removed from American citizens, I can’t help but wonder how much people really buy into some of this Anti-Obama slander that I’ve heard. When I hear some of the things that are said, I can’t help but think to myself “wow, who in their right mind would be convinced by such poor journalism?” When I really think about it though, a lot of people are easily persuaded by the things they see on television, and some people may not really notice things that other people do.
Obama’s ahead in the polls? Suddenly (and conveniently) we have new information to prove that he is actually a Muslim!
He’s getting bigger and more influential supporters? Clinton spokespeople start claiming that there is no possible way that he can win at this point (and odd statement to make about somebody who is winning).
He is winning more states and is still the leading candidate? Well, a commercial led me to believe that apparently he doesn’t have the experience to answer a phone, so now I don’t know what to think…if Obama wins and that phone rings at 3am, he may order an air assault on my sleeping children!
…I have yet to hear very many arguments against Obama that have not tested my limits of plausibility.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
this f’n disgusts me. i’m a 32 year old white male in buffalo, ny and all of my hopes lie with obama. i know he cant change the world but he is the only one that can help make baby steps at restoring this country’s horrible image. but i am a pessimist, and i still believe the clintons will win this democratic nod somehow, even rigging it ala george bush and co. if obama wins the nods, republicans with the king rove will create so many lies and distortions of obama that he has no shot. someone here posted an article awhile back about the likelihood of obama being assassinated, that made me sick to my stomach and yet, thinking about it, the likelihood of that happening is much larger than i first thought. disgusting it is. i hope with all my soul he wins the presidency as he is the only decent person left to help this country.
feel better matt and know we all love you and your impact on our lives is profound.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
that was a great article, thanks for sharing.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
great article, thanks for posting.
i’m bewildered with how easily people believe non-sense, and how easily such non-sense is allowed to be made public.
oh hypodermic needle…and i thought people were smarter now…
March 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
[quote comment="46216"]Being far removed from American citizens, I can’t help but wonder how much people really buy into some of this Anti-Obama slander that I’ve heard. When I hear some of the things that are said, I can’t help but think to myself “wow, who in their right mind would be convinced by such poor journalism?” When I really think about it though, a lot of people are easily persuaded by the things they see on television, and some people may not really notice things that other people do.
Obama’s ahead in the polls? Suddenly (and conveniently) we have new information to prove that he is actually a Muslim!
He’s getting bigger and more influential supporters? Clinton spokespeople start claiming that there is no possible way that he can win at this point (and odd statement to make about somebody who is winning).
He is winning more states and is still the leading candidate? Well, a commercial led me to believe that apparently he doesn’t have the experience to answer a phone, so now I don’t know what to think…if Obama wins and that phone rings at 3am, he may order an air assault on my sleeping children!
…I have yet to hear very many arguments against Obama that have not tested my limits of plausibility.[/quote]
Mind you, it’s a non-story if Hillary Clinton’s name is dragged through the mud by pundits masquerading as journalists on all sorts of cable news shows. One of the popular tactics is to imply that Clinton is responsible for anything that goes wrong with Obama’s campaign. I don’t doubt that Hillary Clinton (like the other candidates) is ambitious to the point of coming across as ruthless. But that’s also the caricature that’s been created of her, the same way that Barack Obama is an angel sent to us from above. Both candidates have their strengths and are, in fact, very similar. So it would be nice if, at the end of the day, people could stop demonizing Clinton or Obama, instead of complaining when it happens to Obama only.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Antiwar is a conflicted publication. Do they oppose all conflict not born purely out of self-defense, as Justin often say, or is it acceptable to admittedly slip into comparisons as he is when he’s here defending Obama? “Well, he says he’s going to get troops out of Iraq within the first sixteen months of his term if he becomes President, so let’s admittedly temporarily ignore his views on possible military intervention in Darfur, something this publication vehemently opposes.” People believe in the name “AntiWar” in principle, as though it’s against unwarranted aggression in general and the Iraq War in particular, whereas I have no doubt that most here would have some sort of ethical problems digesting their views on Darfur and Rwanda. To be honest, I’ve thought this for a while, though this will be the first year in many that I won’t donate money when their next eight-page “Don’t let the Neocons win! Instead, donate to an organization whose core values most likely significantly differ from yours!” banner comes up next. Seriously, most people don’t read the content well enough, instead supporting the idealized version of the site that they hold in their heads. Of course, and idealized anti-war site is preferable to a similarly extreme contemporary on the other side of the spectrum, but it’s distinction that should be noted regardless.
But I digress. Of course, this is only really being considered a “smear” because Obama’s been relatively untouched by the media in recent memory, as well as pulling ahead in delegates and the public vote (though recently, not necessarily in polls, such as Gallup). When Gerladine Ferraro made her notoriously stupid remarks, they were considered comments on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and thus, somehow endorsed by Hillary herself, unshakable regardless of whether they’re renounced or not. When Bill Clinton said Obama’s position such that he would have voted against the Iraq War (for currently relevant reasons, no less) if he was a senator at the time was “a fairy tale”, it was misrepresented by nearly every major media publication as a sleight against a relatively inexperienced black man being President in these trying times was the “fairy tale”. No one had a problem with reporters essentially accusing him to his face of being being racist. No one had a problem with Obama’s *campaign* calling him a racist, which comically conflicted with Jesse Jackson’s take on the matter. I even recall everyone suckling at Stephen Colbert’s teat that night when he made a joke about Bill being a conduit for Hillary to make inflammatory comments with relative deniability, which was a complete misread of the event by his bakers-dozen sized staff of writers who seem to do nothing but comb the news organizations they hate all day). But Obama.. no, he’s off limits.
I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a critical look at Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright. This isn’t a situation where Wright endorses Obama from a position outside of Obama’s life and campaign, and without reciprocation; quite the opposite. Wright has had a significant part in shaping Obama’s identity over the past two decades. But, of course, because Obama (eventually) significantly distanced himself from Wright’s comments, and only to a greater degree when it became politically necesary, this is an issue that is supposed to be over; don’t dig any deeper, of course, because hacks like Raimondo will pull race, the Israel lobby, etc, into the discussion, as it’s simply too tempting not to. Anything that’s deemed detractory from Obama’s squeaky-clean “there’s a rainbow over the horizon, but only I know where it is” image at this point is obviously character assassination, and should only be taken as a sign that Bill and Hillary are getting more desperate (and, of course, racist, in Bill’s case). Which, I have to admit, is a fairly good sign that the dirt-diggers on Obama’s side have simply been more efficient at their job.
To be honest, the entire situation is a joke. Far too many supporters are blindly propping up Obama’s campaign without any intent to scrutinize him, or let others do it, as they’re trying to create an opportunity for change that may or may not be there. This shouldn’t be miscontrued as any sort of tacit support for Hillary. Far from it. What it *is* is frustration at the creation of the same kind of head-in-the-sand, stubborn, stupid, double-standard status quo that already exists among new-age Republicans.
Incidentally, the article itself is a piece of shit. It strains to justify Wright’s viewpoints in a vaccuum, separate from his beliefs as a whole (not that they’re necessarily true in the context Justin puts them to begin with). It reminds me of self-righteous bimbos with shirts that say “Yeah, I’m a bitch, so what?”, as if there’s supposed to be some pride in the very things that make you such a revolting human being. More importantly, it diverges into topics that are completely separate from the issue at hand, essentially trying to emotionally link all of America’s woes with attacking Obama, such that attacking him is TANTAMOUNT to supporting decades of racism, imperialism, and warmongering (a funny implication, given the article’s assertions of “guilt by association”).
But, too many people are up this site’s ass to disagree. The near-complete lack of critical thinking around here (other than, generally, by the authors themselves) is astounding to a degree that can’t sufficiently be described.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Antiwar is a collective website that offers news and perspective from multiple sources. Not all of those that contribute to it even agree.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Raimondo is the co-founder, though, and the fact that he’s (seemingly) defending Obama in this situation is still very odd in the context of a site that is completely anti-interventionalist. Obama is not an antiwar candidate by any stretch of the organization’s definition; he had no problems with the original aims of the war in Afghanistan, nor any problem with attacking targets in Pakistan should the situation be necessary in his eyes, etcetera. So why the relativism? Why is he coming to the defense of someone who most likely would, should he become President, be lambasted daily for actions that are by definition interventionalist, unilateral, pre-emptive? He’s flying in the face of his own beliefs.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Something like 1 in 30 black men in the States will do time and there’s a 1 in 30 chance that I win something from roll up the rim to win.
So every time I win a coffee of a cookie from Tim Horton’s it’s like a black man has gone to jail.
Brutal
March 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am
[quote comment="46246"]Mind you, it’s a non-story if Hillary Clinton’s name is dragged through the mud by pundits masquerading as journalists on all sorts of cable news shows. One of the popular tactics is to imply that Clinton is responsible for anything that goes wrong with Obama’s campaign. I don’t doubt that Hillary Clinton (like the other candidates) is ambitious to the point of coming across as ruthless. But that’s also the caricature that’s been created of her, the same way that Barack Obama is an angel sent to us from above. Both candidates have their strengths and are, in fact, very similar. So it would be nice if, at the end of the day, people could stop demonizing Clinton or Obama, instead of complaining when it happens to Obama only.[/quote]
Originally my comment went on to say that I actually don’t dislike Hilary, nor do I think that she herself is masterminding everything that is going on. I do, however, think that some of Hilary’s comments seem a bit desperate, and when one of her spokespeople outright claim that Obama cannot possibly win at this point, that’s a valid point to be brought up. I don’t watch American news all that much because I have little interest in anything that they have to say about either candidate; I know that 95% of it is bullshit. All I can talk about is that which I do see. From what I have seen, most of Obama’s arguments again Hilary have been with regard to her policies, whereas it seems that most of Hilary’s arguments against Obama have been attempts to bring his character into question. It seems to me that if Obama doesn’t win, it will be because the media has tricked so many people into thinking that he is some sort of secret, America-hating Islamo-fascist that is just waiting for his chance to get into the white house so that he can bring Al Qaeda into the country. I’ve known to be wrong on occasion though, and as a Canadian it’s hard for me to say that with any certainty.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Fear is easier than acceptance. Judging is easier than understanding. Following is easier than leading. There are sheep in all countries, here in the US we have a lot of them, if not the most. Baaa.
Sure, I could say I am above it all. I could say that I am not like the rest of them and place myself on some sort of pedestal looking down on the flocks mindlessly wandering our streets. But I choose to feel as if those of us who know better are just as responsible, if not more so.
BJ
March 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
[quote comment="46325"][quote comment="46246"]Mind you, it’s a non-story if Hillary Clinton’s name is dragged through the mud by pundits masquerading as journalists on all sorts of cable news shows. One of the popular tactics is to imply that Clinton is responsible for anything that goes wrong with Obama’s campaign. I don’t doubt that Hillary Clinton (like the other candidates) is ambitious to the point of coming across as ruthless. But that’s also the caricature that’s been created of her, the same way that Barack Obama is an angel sent to us from above. Both candidates have their strengths and are, in fact, very similar. So it would be nice if, at the end of the day, people could stop demonizing Clinton or Obama, instead of complaining when it happens to Obama only.[/quote]
Originally my comment went on to say that I actually don’t dislike Hilary, nor do I think that she herself is masterminding everything that is going on. I do, however, think that some of Hilary’s comments seem a bit desperate, and when one of her spokespeople outright claim that Obama cannot possibly win at this point, that’s a valid point to be brought up. I don’t watch American news all that much because I have little interest in anything that they have to say about either candidate; I know that 95% of it is bullshit. All I can talk about is that which I do see. From what I have seen, most of Obama’s arguments again Hilary have been with regard to her policies, whereas it seems that most of Hilary’s arguments against Obama have been attempts to bring his character into question. It seems to me that if Obama doesn’t win, it will be because the media has tricked so many people into thinking that he is some sort of secret, America-hating Islamo-fascist that is just waiting for his chance to get into the white house so that he can bring Al Qaeda into the country. I’ve known to be wrong on occasion though, and as a Canadian it’s hard for me to say that with any certainty.[/quote]
To be fair, I used your comment to address something that had been bugging me for a while, even though what has been bugging me is only loosely related to what you said. If I wanted to martyr her, I would argue that Hillary Clinton’s biggest drawback is not being as charismatic as Barack Obama. While true, I also feel that her campaign has been run relatively well, when it could easily be excellent. A lot of Clinton’s ‘jabs’ have the air of being painfully rehearsed, which makes me think that her handlers are also terrible in being able to read what will and will not go over well. Sometimes, Clinton will say something and I’ll wince and think, ‘Come on, you know better than that…’ and I truly believe she does. Hillary is a smart, capable, quick-thinking woman but her campaign (and I never consider a Presidential campaign to accurately represent its candidate) has been schizophrenic at best. So that makes me sad. I like Obama, but I sometimes become cynical when 90% (if not more) of his speeches are chalk-full of pablum. It worries me because he really is young and I do get the impression that he’s a little naive about what is possible as President. He does bring with him a host of good qualities though, and so at best I might end up pleasantly surprised. I’m okay with that.
Oh, and I am also Canadian.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am
[quote comment="46257"]Antiwar is a conflicted publication. Do they oppose all conflict not born purely out of self-defense, as Justin often say, or is it acceptable to admittedly slip into comparisons as he is when he’s here defending Obama? “Well, he says he’s going to get troops out of Iraq within the first sixteen months of his term if he becomes President, so let’s admittedly temporarily ignore his views on possible military intervention in Darfur, something this publication vehemently opposes.” People believe in the name “AntiWar” in principle, as though it’s against unwarranted aggression in general and the Iraq War in particular, whereas I have no doubt that most here would have some sort of ethical problems digesting their views on Darfur and Rwanda. To be honest, I’ve thought this for a while, though this will be the first year in many that I won’t donate money when their next eight-page “Don’t let the Neocons win! Instead, donate to an organization whose core values most likely significantly differ from yours!” banner comes up next. Seriously, most people don’t read the content well enough, instead supporting the idealized version of the site that they hold in their heads. Of course, and idealized anti-war site is preferable to a similarly extreme contemporary on the other side of the spectrum, but it’s distinction that should be noted regardless.
But I digress. Of course, this is only really being considered a “smear” because Obama’s been relatively untouched by the media in recent memory, as well as pulling ahead in delegates and the public vote (though recently, not necessarily in polls, such as Gallup). When Gerladine Ferraro made her notoriously stupid remarks, they were considered comments on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and thus, somehow endorsed by Hillary herself, unshakable regardless of whether they’re renounced or not. When Bill Clinton said Obama’s position such that he would have voted against the Iraq War (for currently relevant reasons, no less) if he was a senator at the time was “a fairy tale”, it was misrepresented by nearly every major media publication as a sleight against a relatively inexperienced black man being President in these trying times was the “fairy tale”. No one had a problem with reporters essentially accusing him to his face of being being racist. No one had a problem with Obama’s *campaign* calling him a racist, which comically conflicted with Jesse Jackson’s take on the matter. I even recall everyone suckling at Stephen Colbert’s teat that night when he made a joke about Bill being a conduit for Hillary to make inflammatory comments with relative deniability, which was a complete misread of the event by his bakers-dozen sized staff of writers who seem to do nothing but comb the news organizations they hate all day). But Obama.. no, he’s off limits.
I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a critical look at Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright. This isn’t a situation where Wright endorses Obama from a position outside of Obama’s life and campaign, and without reciprocation; quite the opposite. Wright has had a significant part in shaping Obama’s identity over the past two decades. But, of course, because Obama (eventually) significantly distanced himself from Wright’s comments, and only to a greater degree when it became politically necesary, this is an issue that is supposed to be over; don’t dig any deeper, of course, because hacks like Raimondo will pull race, the Israel lobby, etc, into the discussion, as it’s simply too tempting not to. Anything that’s deemed detractory from Obama’s squeaky-clean “there’s a rainbow over the horizon, but only I know where it is” image at this point is obviously character assassination, and should only be taken as a sign that Bill and Hillary are getting more desperate (and, of course, racist, in Bill’s case). Which, I have to admit, is a fairly good sign that the dirt-diggers on Obama’s side have simply been more efficient at their job.
To be honest, the entire situation is a joke. Far too many supporters are blindly propping up Obama’s campaign without any intent to scrutinize him, or let others do it, as they’re trying to create an opportunity for change that may or may not be there. This shouldn’t be miscontrued as any sort of tacit support for Hillary. Far from it. What it *is* is frustration at the creation of the same kind of head-in-the-sand, stubborn, stupid, double-standard status quo that already exists among new-age Republicans.
Incidentally, the article itself is a piece of shit. It strains to justify Wright’s viewpoints in a vaccuum, separate from his beliefs as a whole (not that they’re necessarily true in the context Justin puts them to begin with). It reminds me of self-righteous bimbos with shirts that say “Yeah, I’m a bitch, so what?”, as if there’s supposed to be some pride in the very things that make you such a revolting human being. More importantly, it diverges into topics that are completely separate from the issue at hand, essentially trying to emotionally link all of America’s woes with attacking Obama, such that attacking him is TANTAMOUNT to supporting decades of racism, imperialism, and warmongering (a funny implication, given the article’s assertions of “guilt by association”).
But, too many people are up this site’s ass to disagree. The near-complete lack of critical thinking around here (other than, generally, by the authors themselves) is astounding to a degree that can’t sufficiently be described.[/quote]
I wanted to respond to what you wrote because I believe your off-the-cuff response to the article in question was excellent and thought-provoking. Obviously, I share many of your views regarding the current political discourse in the United States, which helps. I do take exception to some of your tone, if only because it comes across as vitriolic and cynical to the point wherein I couldn’t help but think, ‘Wow, this person is a deeply unhappy one,’ true or not, fair or not. (For example, lambasting Colbert, a comedian and satirist, for one joke that wasn’t entirely factually clear?) Still, we need intelligent individuals to challenge the status-quo in a way that calls for deeper questions and more intelligent, empirically-based solutions.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
[quote comment="46362"]To be fair, I used your comment to address something that had been bugging me for a while, even though what has been bugging me is only loosely related to what you said. If I wanted to martyr her, I would argue that Hillary Clinton’s biggest drawback is not being as charismatic as Barack Obama. While true, I also feel that her campaign has been run relatively well, when it could easily be excellent. A lot of Clinton’s ‘jabs’ have the air of being painfully rehearsed, which makes me think that her handlers are also terrible in being able to read what will and will not go over well. Sometimes, Clinton will say something and I’ll wince and think, ‘Come on, you know better than that…’ and I truly believe she does. Hillary is a smart, capable, quick-thinking woman but her campaign (and I never consider a Presidential campaign to accurately represent its candidate) has been schizophrenic at best. So that makes me sad. I like Obama, but I sometimes become cynical when 90% (if not more) of his speeches are chalk-full of pablum. It worries me because he really is young and I do get the impression that he’s a little naive about what is possible as President. He does bring with him a host of good qualities though, and so at best I might end up pleasantly surprised. I’m okay with that.
Oh, and I am also Canadian.[/quote]
Alright, I was worried that my comment came off more Anti-Hilary than I had intended. Although she’s not my first choice candidate (something which I am aware biases my assessment of things), I do think that she would make a good president. I also agree that many media outlets seem to have a bias towards Obama, but I don’t think it’s to the extent that she claimed during one debate, saying that she always gets the first question, implying some conspiracy against her. When she sticks to the issues, she gives me hope that she’d make a good president. It’s the moment she mentions something else that she gets me wondering.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
[quote comment="46365"]
I wanted to respond to what you wrote because I believe your off-the-cuff response to the article in question was excellent and thought-provoking. Obviously, I share many of your views regarding the current political discourse in the United States, which helps. I do take exception to some of your tone, if only because it comes across as vitriolic and cynical to the point wherein I couldn’t help but think, ‘Wow, this person is a deeply unhappy one,’ true or not, fair or not. (For example, lambasting Colbert, a comedian and satirist, for one joke that wasn’t entirely factually clear?) Still, we need intelligent individuals to challenge the status-quo in a way that calls for deeper questions and more intelligent, empirically-based solutions.[/quote]
I watch The Colbert Report nightly. My shot isn’t at Stephen himself, who I think is at his best when it’s a) clear that he’s the one writing material, and/or b) ad libbing. What I’m saying is that everything that’s piped through his show is unquestioned by his followers, when it should be scrutinized just as much as anything else. In this case, Stephen, or one of his writers, took the five-second clip making the rounds on the very news shows that they lampoon day after day for their inaccuracy and regurgitation at face value, and made a judgment about him - that is, that Bill was both a mouthpiece for all of the slanderous shots that Hillary didn’t want directly coming out of her mouth, and a lightning rod for the resulting criticism such that Hillary could play the “Bill and I don’t always agree on things, but he has the right to free speech” card - that wasn’t based in the reality of the situation. This is just as wrong on The Colbert Report as it is on Fox News or Hardball (which is where I think it originated).
March 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Obama’s speech today on racism and a unilateral vision for America was very interesting. It seems to me from ongoing discussion ive had that there are still a great many who believe his backing is mainly from ‘racist’ black voters than the hope-inspired young or the ironically intellectual. The fact that so much media coverage recently has focused on how white people are now hiding their fears not behind his ‘inexperience’ but his racially blurred followers is hilarious, being the main proportion of racial prejudice is therefore from them themselves. There are far more white voters not wanting Obama in power (terrified in fact) than there are black voters wanting the opposite. By definition of both populace and demographic, the anti-black vote would outweigh the pro-black. And where does that leave us? Unmentioned white racism, mainly through ignorance, yet also through a fear of, guess what, the unknown.
Traditionally people have been afraid of change. America has got to the 19th of March 2008 under a white government, and its done alright. I mean, its only grown to be the global superpower in 200 years, (tainted in its path through slavery, murder and corruption of course) but stepping forward under black rule? Thats just too much of a risk, I mean how could it be that the most important man in the world would of 40 years ago had to sit at the back of a bus? But change has to come. Bush has seen to turning that tide all too quickly.
The narrow-minded or self-comforting white people have convinced themselves that black homelessness, the black convicted, the black drug world, the black gun-toters and the black crime statistics have all rubbed off on Obama, and that he will not only bend the US in favour of a pro-black society but that he will neglect white people! That is all of course in addition to his pro-Islamic fundamentalist sentiments and secret terrorist immigration policies. The argument that black people are wrong to carry the emotion of anger from their disgustingly treated history into modern day life is flawed, yet to balance things level, you need just that, to let go of the hurt and rise above it.
I hope if Obama follows through on his convictions, the race barrier can be one step closer to being breached, although with a stubborn and severe nationwide prejudice of his obviously nefarious intent, it may be a long way off, if ever.
The fact he is actually half-caste could perhaps be used as a symbol of hope, not one of division.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Obama does well to distance himself from everything. Why does his eloquence suddenly vanish into thin air the second it might piss someone off (omitting of course, opposers to hope and ‘change’)? I like him as a person, and I want to support him. But that said, the whole refusal-to-take-a-controversial-stand thing hasn’t played so well in history, and this is a very important chapter.
This is just a general observation, not in response to this article. Obviously there are ridiculous smears out to get Obama, just as there are ridiculous praises that ignore the fact that the man’s human and capable of disaster.
Martin Luther King (a man Obama’s been frequently compared to) believed in love also, but he wasn’t afraid to be divisive in preaching it. He simply refused to censor himself; an unfortunately heroic trait in this day and age.
Comparatively, Obama’s not half that great by a long shot. But however unfortunate, sometimes you take what you’re given.
May the best man (or woman) win.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Your position, if one can call it that, is about as racist and naive as it gets. I suppose I’ll post more later when I don’t feel like it’s such a chore to explain, in great detail, why your statements are so morally repugnant. For the moment, I’m left wondering why 62% of the “narrow-minded or self-comforting white people” in Vermont overwhelmeingly supported Obama, or whether their vote for Obama saved them from being described as such. More specifically, I wonder what proportion of the approximately 37% of the white base who voted for Clinton in those circumstances should be labeled as such? What about the 60% of Minnesotan males who voted for Obama? Are they the only non-racists around? In fact, more whites voted for Obama than Hillary in New Mexico, Illinois, Virginia, and possible others, and as I recall, for ever five white votes for Hillary, there are four for Obama. Are the ~15% of blacks who have voted for Hillary selling out their own race? I suppose they haven’t heard that “the argument that black people are wrong to carry the emotion of anger from their disgustingly treated history into modern day life is flawed”. Perhaps we should, in A Clockwork Orange-esque way, peel their eyes open and force them to watch Roots and Amistad ad nauseum until they express that hate? Let me make it clear; I doubt you know a goddamn thing about the realities of the “anger” that black people are apparently supposed to have.
Racism is racism both ways. Categorizing “whites” who don’t agree with you is no more acceptable than this apparently wide-spread fear among said white voters of “racist blacks”. That’s the point of racial equality and “unity”, which seems to be lost on you.
I can safely say that Obama’s questionable platform, besides his economically unsound and misleading healthcare reform policy, weak and contradictory foreign policy positions, and the multitude of half-measures in between. As I expected when I heard last night that Obama would be giving a speech today, it was an aimless shotgun spread of broad, though valid, issues that didn’t properly deal with the specific questions at hand.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I should note that I’m aware that it seems as though I lost a few words in the last paragraph. It should say,
“I can safely say that Obama’s questionable platform, besides his economically unsound and misleading healthcare reform policy, weak and contradictory foreign policy positions, and the multitude of half-measures in between, isn’t questionable because of race in the least.”
March 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Arecibo, it seems my sarcasm has clouded the issue. Firstly, I was countering a trend ive seen in discussion of late that a growing number of white people seem to be against him because of his race not his ‘inexperience’. Thats not my view, its just an observation. Secondly, im more than aware of the poll figures and percentages and there will always be exceptions to the rule, even more so when he is leading the damn presidential campaign in the first place, snatching majoraties from ‘white’ states just the same as ‘black’. I completely agree that racism is racism regardless of colour, sort of the point in fact. Ill also make it clear to you im not a racist and dont consider myself naive, much as that flies in the face of your superior knowledge of me, or indeed my ’stance’. I could continue in defending my position but cant really be bothered, im not getting drawn into an argument with you, your aggression and presumption makes me wish one day I could be like you, then I could feel a whole lot better about myself. Hell I may even run for president.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
[quote comment="46466"]Let me make it clear; I doubt you know a goddamn thing about the realities of the “anger” that black people are apparently supposed to have.[/quote]
Oh, and I couldn’t possibly be black myself then. Don’t assume. It makes an ass of you and me.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
[quote comment="46575"]Arecibo, it seems my sarcasm has clouded the issue. Firstly, I was countering a trend ive seen in discussion of late that a growing number of white people seem to be against him because of his race not his ‘inexperience’. Thats not my view, its just an observation. Secondly, im more than aware of the poll figures and percentages and there will always be exceptions to the rule, even more so when he is leading the damn presidential campaign in the first place, snatching majoraties from ‘white’ states just the same as ‘black’. I completely agree that racism is racism regardless of colour, sort of the point in fact. Ill also make it clear to you im not a racist and dont consider myself naive, much as that flies in the face of your superior knowledge of me, or indeed my ’stance’. I could continue in defending my position but cant really be bothered, im not getting drawn into an argument with you, your aggression and presumption makes me wish one day I could be like you, then I could feel a whole lot better about myself. Hell I may even run for president.[/quote]
In all of the media coverage, poll results, etc. I’ve seen over the past two months, and more specifically, the past week, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the number of people who are making his race their primary objection to voting for him has increased at all. More specifically, attributing any significant backlash to the recent events surrounding him to a public questioning of his beliefs rather than uncovering latent racism is false on practically every level. Racists themselves will get louder at times like these, but it’s still the same number of voices. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve even see a public opinion poll that has specifically asked whether or not they were averse to voting for Obama specifically because of his race, much less one that shows any sort of trend on the subject.
By the way, I don’t see how what I said was the “exception to the rule”. Obama’s gaining enough white votes at this time that it nearly IS the rule. In fact, speaking along ethnic lines, the only constant has been that black people have voted overwhelmingly for Obama in all states, and exit polls have shown that many of those voters have done so because he is black. Do I point at them and say it’s racist to make common ethnicity, and not policy objectives, their prime motivation for supporting him? No, I point to that as people voting for the candidate who they feel represents them best.
Etcetera, etcetera. I added, brief as they may have been, some of my objectives to his platform at the end of my last post (twice, in fact). I was somewhat looking forward to talking about that, since I think those are the real issues that need to be talked about.
[quote comment="46577"]Oh, and I couldn’t possibly be black myself then. Don’t assume. It makes an ass of you and me.[/quote]
1) Are you black?
2) Do you think I think that whether or not you’re black makes your statements any more valid? Do you think I think that all black people have the same feelings on the situation? Do you think I didn’t consider the fact that you might not be white before I said that?
No, I said it because your position sounds ridiculous. I have black friends who wouldn’t understand the kind of American “black anger” that’s been the root of discussion for the past few days. Jamaican, mostly, though I doubt any have a heritage of slavery. The point is that it isn’t something that’s encoded in your genes, nor have they had the same experiences as those in poorer areas of cities like Detroit (which I’ve spent a good deal of time in) or even Minneapolis (where I’ve spent more time with past friends at an inner-city school). Your skin color doesn’t automatically entitle you to a point of view that would be indefensible otherwise. Nor is it, in realistic terms, broad issues like slavery and a history of oppression, as concepts, that causes this kind of anger. No, as a white person who could never really understand the situation because the lack of pigment in my skin robs me of both perspective and empathy, I would say that one of many reasons for these kinds of outbursts, this kind of raw anger, is that political change does not force social change. Desegregating schools and organizations doesn’t force the integration of fragments of society. There is no way to legislate acceptance on a personal level. By removing the elements of racism entrenched in law, blacks and other minorities were declared “free” in principle, when that certainly wasn’t the case. More relevantly, voting in a black president isn’t an automatic gateway toward a path of unity. The people you say are racist now, will, most likely, always be racist. Yes, te important thing that his supporters would bring up is that the way he embodies “hope” for this kind of change through his policies, not who he is, but given posts like yours that are primarily racially charged, I don’t see that kind out outlook as the most true. And in the end, white people can vote for a white nominee with the ideas of unity and change at the forefront of their minds and be sincere about it. You can’t imply that those who don’t like Obama are against some sort of ill-defined path of unity and ultimate healing if they don’t jump onboard. If he is declared the nominee and president, that will undoubtedly be a milestone in every way that could be expected. But you can’t force a milestone.
Now, if you’d like to talk about how Obama’s health care plan has a good chance of fundamentally trapping low-income earners (which is statistically skewed toward minorities) into a false sense of security by not providing any incentive to hold insurance at times they actually don’t directly need treatment - which subsequently shifts the financial burden onto those who actually hold insurance - or one of his other policies, then that would be the kind of discussion that could actually be productive.