They give guys like this NYT op ed spots:
I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
I’m really, really tired of Obama supporters crying “racism!” at every turn. I’m even more tired of journalists and pundits enabling them.
Update: God. Sullivan actually agrees with this idiocy. He’s a serious person, though, don’t you know. Because, um, he hates Bush and supports gay marriage.
Update II: Welcome, Instapundit readers — and thanks, Glenn, for linking. I’m writing about Eliot Spitzer today as well, if you’re not sick of that topic yet.
Update III: Apparently, there *was* a black child in the ad. Orlando Peterson’s next column will no doubt focus on the fact that the child isn’t “black enough“.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Politics, Race
I wonder how far up he had to reach to pull that from his hindquarters. You gotta dig pretty deep to come up with that.
Well, it doesn’t help that Hillary’s people make it so easy – like Ms. Ferraro’s latest salvo.
Ferraro is an idiot — her remarks should be scorned to the high heavens.
The op ed referenced in this post, though, is pure hogwash, and check out the comments to it. Obama supporters are eating it up.
Just because it’s easy doesn’t make it right.
avoiding having to put 4 years of this nonsense from his supporters is another reason not to vote for Obama
A blogging friend of mine had a good take on the racial/sexual breakdown of the votes so far. So much for the party of inclusion and tolerance.
Really? You’re sick of it already?? Hate to tell you but every criticism of Obama is going to be called racist. It keeps the blacks fired up and stokes white guilt
“I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery”
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail
Strawman Cometh pretty much hits the nail on the head. (Pun intended.)
I’m constantly amazed how people can come up with excuses to call something racist/sexist, etc. but ignore the same behaviors by someone of whom they approve. There are people out there for whom every thing is interpreted through their heavily tinted glasses.
when Walter Mondale used the same ad, was he a racist?
What, a Sullivan post with no reference to dreaded “Christianists”? Must be an off day. Oh, and We. Do. Not. Torture.
Paddy:
Patterson mentioned the Mondale ad, for what its worth. Apparently, the Mondale ad was OK because it only included a telephone. This ad included a picture of a sleeping child and is therefore racists.
And, for the record, that may be the stupidist thing I ever heard in my entire life.
You know, it just occured to me that the movie “Birth of a Nation” also had horses. White horses. Does that mean that Budweiser is racist too?
Of COURSE Andrew Sullivan agrees with this. That’s his schtick. When you can only see the world through a narrow lens of single-issue grievance politics (gay marriage in Excitable Andy’s case; Oppression by The Man in Patterson’s), then naturally you are going to get all sorts of distortions and aberrations infesting your vision.
Why do I, as a libertarian minarchocapitalist, feel I have so much more in common with a paleo-lefty like Christopher Hitchens than with an absurd dandified screamer like Sullivan? It is because when one reads Hitchens, or listens to him, one gets a sense of a hinterland, something that underpins his politics but is not of it. Not so Sullivan: it’s all gay marriage, all the time. How boring he must be.
The Birth of a Nation also had a black man played by a white guy in blackface (Must. Contain. Guffaw.)
Ferraro used crude language, but I don’t think her thesis is incorrect: a white 3 year Senator with absolutely no credentials for the presidency other than a cult of personality and the “historic” nature of his campaign would have been gone after Iowa.
Look, even his wife is pulling the race card vis a vis his campaign. Why else is she so proud of her country alluva sudden? Because the country is progressive enough to vote for a black man, washing it clean of its racist past.
Futher, if whites voted as monolithically as blacks in this Dem primary season, Obama would have no campaign. If whites voted for Hillary in the same percentages as blacks vote for Obama (about 90%) then we’d be hearing cries of racism and division.
I’m pretty disgusted with both Dem candidates. Both base their campaigns solely on the basis of affirmative action. Neither is remotely qualified to run this country.
docweasel:
I agree with most of what you say, but isn’t everything Ferraro said about Obama’s campaign equally true of her own VP run in 1984? Or Hillary’s run this year, for that matter?
“Ferraro used crude language, but I don’t think her thesis is incorrect:”
She didn’t use crude language, she used direct language. How should she have expressed this thesis? The problem isn’t her language, it’s her thesis — it’s wrong.
“a white 3 year Senator with absolutely no credentials for the presidency other than a cult of personality and the “historic” nature of his campaign would have been gone after Iowa”
Well, setting aside the fact that this comment does not describe Sen. Obama as a candidate, it suffers from an additional problem: he won Iowa. Sen. Obama didn’t win Iowa, a state with a black population of 2.3%, because he’s black. It certainly had a lot to do with the fact that he opposed the Iraq war, that he is an obviously smart, confident, thoughtful and composed candidate who is also young and dynamic, that he has held public office longer than either of his two main rivals and has worked in the public interest virtually his entire adult life, that he is an electrifying and moving public speaker, and that he brings an uplifting message of hope, unity and change in a year when the electorate is aching for the restoration of these qualities to politics. Which also helps to explain how he went on to win states like Idaho, Utah, Maine, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Wyoming. Not because he’s black.
He’s not the leading Democratic candidate because he’s black but because he has won more delegates, more states, and more popular votes than any other candidate.
“Both base their campaigns solely on the basis of affirmative action. ”
I disagree, Doc. Can you give me an example of Barack Obama making an appeal “solely on the basis of affirmative action?”
“Neither is remotely qualified to run this country.”
I disagree.
“isn’t everything Ferraro said about Obama’s campaign equally true of her own VP run in 1984?”
Sean: it is much more accurate to say of Geraldine Ferrarro that she was where she was (the VP candidate) because she is a woman than to say that Obama is where he is because he’s a black man. She was selected for that position by one person: Walter Mondale. He obviously selected her primarily because, as a woman, her selection broke a barrier and brought attention and enthusiasm (and, he hoped, the votes of lots of female swing voters) to the ticket. Barack Obama, by contrast, has won election after election. He has proved himself as a candidate by winning more votes than anyone else. That’s why he is where he is.
“Or Hillary’s run this year, for that matter?”
Hillary is certainly a capable and qualified candidate. Since she’s been on the national stage she has proven herself to be tough and smart. However, it is probably fair to say that she got the opportunity to be where she is today largely because she married Bill Clinton. As a successful, competent corporate lawyer, she would otherwise be an accomplished person, but would hardly have been seen as particularly qualifed to be elected Senator from New York as opposed, say, to Congresswoman Nita Lowey from Long Island — who was planning to run until Hillary announced.
That’s life.
Geraldine Ferrarro: “I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”"
That’s idiotic.
More from prominent Clinton supporter and fundraiser Geraldine Ferraro: “Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
“Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist,” she said. “I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”
And Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams, responding to the Obama campaign’s complaints about Ferraro’s remarks: “We reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary.”
One of these two campaigns is using the charge of racism as a weapon. And it’s not the Obama campaign.
twc: Obama himself disagrees with you:
That’s a pretty clear admission that “supporters” (i.e., Jesse Jackson Jr., perhaps? And is his position on the Obama campaign any lesser than Ferraro’s on the Clinton campaign?) are pushing racist accusations against the Clintons.
It’s a statement that he regrets pushing that story in January. And, for the most part, the Obama campaign has not pushed that story since. But when a member of the Clinton campaign’s finance committee makes a statement like the one that Geraldine Ferraro made, it’s not unfair for Obama and his campaign to object — and it is ridiculous for the Clinton campaign manager then to characterize those objections as “false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of the primary” which they “reject.”
What they should be rejecting — and “denouncing” — is Ms. Ferraro’s fairly overtly racist comments, and leave it at that.
BTW, Sen. Obama last night was asked by Chris Matthews about the Orlando Patterson op-ed and he said that he “didn’t buy into” the idea that race played a part in the 3 a.m. ad.
Upon reflection, let me withdraw my characterization of Ms. Ferraro’s initial comment as overtly racist. I notice that Sen. Obama himself did not refer to it that way. But it was, I think, a fairly absurd comment about the role of Sen. Obama’s race in this campaign. If he were a white man, whatever that even means, I suppose that he would be more likely to have this nomination already won than further behind. And if he were a woman — good lord, who knows? Her subsequent comments speak for themselves.
But objecting to her initial comment was hardly an unfair “personal attack.”
It’s nice that Sen. Obama doesn’t “buy into” Patterson’s column, but this post was actually about Obama’s supporters, twc:
You’ll note there was no call for Obama to disavow the column in this post, or for him to control his supporters (obviously impossible), but the fact remains his supporters who cry “racism” every time a Clinton surrogate opens his or her mouth aren’t helping him.
The Dems sold their souls to the demon of identity politics in the ’60’s and this is the obvious and inevitable consequence. One thing this primary season exposes is that their isn’t a Democrat in the country that puts the interests of the country ahead of their blatant racism and sexism and reactionary attitudes towards both.
Seems like Obama has a lot of “regrets” that we are supposed to simply ignore.
He “regreats” saying this. He “regrets” doing business with that. He “regrets” that his supporters did something else.
How much of his “change” is he going to “regret” later? Or should I say, how much of it will we regret?
Another fact is that even for a Democrat, Obama has gotten a free ride (at least up until recently, with the Rezko affair coming into the headlines) from the press, who instead constantly trumpet the “historic” fact of a black man making a serious run at the presidency and who are worshipful and adoring of Obama without examining his actual record and stand on the issues.
This usually results in good things for the Republicans when they actually DO bring up unpleasant facts like Obama being the most liberal Senator in the chamber and his other cockamamie suggestions on how to run government and foreign policy. As John Kerry (80% favorable news stories to GWBush’s 18% in the run-up to the 2004 election) found out, reality bites hard after being stroked by the press for 2 years.
Its always been my contention that the leftist press hurts the Dems more than helps them because it insulates them and lulls them into false complacency. We’ve seen how Obama loses it when barely tweaked by the press. I’d look for him to self-destruct when the going really gets tough.
I’m still in the camp of those who think Obama will be crushed in November. He’s a black Howard Dean, just as much of an empty suit, a hypocritical pantload who uses race when it suits him, a naif about foreign policy, a socialist on domestic issues, and in fact a poor campaigner who has been propped up by a complacent press that hates Hillary.
I’ll go Ferraro one further: If Obama was white, he would have suffered the same flame-out as upstart Howard Dean, because he’s unqualified and out of his depth, as well as a merely a fad, not truly a great politician. Race, and the monolithic support of blacks in the Dem primaries has given him the bubble to beat Clinton: but the shelf-life of messiahs is short, and I’d be surprised to see it last out the summer. Plus, the press is due to turn on him. He’s their creation, and they tend to destroy their own creations when the “saviour” story gets old and Obambi will be an easy target as he looks bewilderingly into the headlights of harsh press examination of his financial dealings, his real policy stands, his plan to tax and spend his way into buying votes, his plan to coddle our enemies while prostrating America in apology for being “mean” and imperialistic.
Listen to Obama’s wife for the true character of their attitudes towards whites and America in general. She can’t help herself, she’s a prima donna herself and now that she’s got a platform she’s telling white America just what she thinks about them, and its not pretty. It is, in fact, more racist than anything anyone has said about Obama.
An Obama presidency would tear this country apart. Thankfully, rank and file working Dems aren’t going to vote for him, I don’t care what the national polls say.
“Thankfully, rank and file working Dems aren’t going to vote for him, I don’t care what the national polls say.”
Are you back to “Obama will never be elected, not this cycle, anyway, and probably won’t even get the nomination, for many reasons” and “I have never doubted, in the last 8 years, that she would win the nomination in ‘08″?
Doc, he’s won 25 states so far plus D.C. and the Virgin Islands, (not counting Texas or Nevada where he won more delegates but not the statewide vote). He’s gotten more popular votes than any other Democratic candidate. There are only 12 (or 14) states left. Dems are voting for him.
Not rank and file Dems, not in the numbers he needs to win. I think Gov. Rendell spoke the truth when he said, re: Penn., that most working class white Dems will not vote for a black man. And, “Reagan” Dems the country over have held to this. Also, older Dems.
I don’t think its because they are racist, but it is because of race. Although Obama gives lip service to “getting beyond race” he plays for race when it suits him. And his wife is quite open about it. Its hard for a black man in America, she claims, complaining she has to spend 10k a year for her kids extra-curricular activities. I guess she’s blissfully unaware some people live on that much a year.
The nut of this gist is that the Obamas feel they are owed, and black America is owed. Ms. Obama is proud of America for the first time in her adult life because they finally got over their peckerwood redneck KKK racist bigotry and voted in large enough numbers to presumably give Obama the nomination. Because to do otherwise would reinforce her belief that America is still a backwards, racist “mean” country that needs to redeem itself, and it can do so by electing Obama.
If it doesn’t it will prove Americans are NOT beyond race. No other considerations apply, only race.
Middle class whites hear this and get the idea that, as his wife says, Obama is black first and an American second, and it gives them the idea that an Obama presidency will involve some “payback”. And in the zero sum game of Dem interest group patronage, the majority see no reason to cave because they are expected to atone for their guilt.
We aren’t beyond race, and blacks certainly aren’t, moreso, I think, than whites.
Blacks are voting for Obama like 90% rates. If whites voted for Hillary like that, there would be no Obama presidency. But its whites that get called racists.
No, I don’t think he can win the general, not by any stretch. I misjudged how badly Clinton would bungle, and the residual hatred for her bubbled up at the first sign of weakness. I think even the Dems are beginning to have buyer’s remorse for Obama, what with his fumbling fit of pique at the first signs of negative press, the Rezko thing, the 3am thing, etc.
I don’t think Obama can be stopped now, the numbers favor him. But I think he is going to be damaged, that he is a terribly flawed candidate, and that McCain will win in an electoral landslide.
Obama got here because he was the beneficiary of a wave of fanaticism. I think its crested, and is going to crash, hard. And before the convention. The mess the Dems are in is not resolved, not by a long shot. Its going to get much worse as cooler heads begin to realize Obama is not ready for a hard campaign. But what can they do about it that won’t piss off blacks and other Obamaniacs?
The Dems never did have 2 great candidates fighting it out. They had 2 fatally flawed candidates, and the GOP picked the nominee they most feared, and against the trend (8 years of a very unpopular prez, an inpending recession and an unpopular war, plus a trend against Republicans) McCain is going to win, and win big.
I actually think only Al Gore would even have a chance at beating McCain, but the Dems aren’t that smart.
i am not able to understand the post.