Lurking near the end of Tom Edsall's excellent piece on the Clinton campaign's efforts to retool we get this WTF moment: "In private, some of Clinton's supporters are deeply disdainful of Obama. 'He is the candidate of the "identity left",' said one, dismissively." These sound like some talking points straight outta 1988 to me.
« A Win for Mitt | Main | The Penn Factor »
And By "Identity" We Mean "Black People"
06 Jan 2008 11:30 pm
Comments (55)
Apparently these supporters are unaware of things like the entrance polls in Iowa--or, for that matter, of the results in Iowa.
'He is the candidate of the "identity left",'
So sayeth the campaign that looks for support from older women who cannot believe they'll have a chance to vote for a female President, and that has the candidate attend events with mother and daughter in tow. Whatever. If it helps her win, it helps her win.
"Of course, what Gof ignores is that while Paul could veto legislation, he couldn't do much else"
Well he would also be in charge of running the federal bureaucracy. That's not something I'd look forward to.
Funny that we read and heard countless thumbsuckers about whether blacks would support Obama because he wasn't "authentically black" or some such horseshit.
Now he's so authentically black that he's part of the "identity left" to these idiots in the Clinton campaign.
What dolt would say that within earshot of a reporter? It's not going to swing any votes to her and it may swing some away.
I'm sure glad I didn't read any convincing "night of the long knives" stories about the Obama campaign when he wasn't rising fast enough for the kook kidz. OTOH, it seems like I read this kind of intra-campaign sniping in during every Clinton campaign. Admittedly Obama's campaign wasn't under the pressure of implosion over the summer and fall as Clinton's appears to be doing now, but these 'leaks from Clinton insiders" stories were happening well before Iowa. And happened during Bill's campaigns too. They're tiresome and reflect really poorly on Democrats as whiners who can't keep their mouths shut. I'll be glad when I don't have to read them any more.
But Clinton is really, really likeable and an awesome candidate. It's just that people in the media don't like her. That's her only problem.
Seriously, this line is all the more laughable since the Clinton camp has been playing the "black vote is ours - they don't really think of Obama as 'one of them'". Now that he's steamrolling, that's all he is! Even funnier considering how many African-Americans there are in Iowa.
Go Obama!
It's Stan Goff, by the way.
"Well he would also be in charge of running the federal bureaucracy. That's not something I'd look forward to."
Well, Gof thinks otherwise. In fact, that's his point. Whatever Paul did to gut the departments YOU like, he'd also primarily gut the departments you DON'T like - with far greater net effect.
You can argue the point, of course. For Gof, it's a one-issue election: the war, the "War on Terror" and its effects. On that score, Paul is way ahead of any Democrat.
But Gof also points out that Paul could make efforts to neuter the "War on Drugs", and other matters that mostly affect minorities, despite being an alleged (and never proven) "racist".
Of course, Gof ignores the fact that Paul could never put the US back on the gold standard by decree. So it was a bit pointless to bring that up.
But neutering the Defense Department and the Justice Department alone would make Paul the best US President in history, no matter what else he did. As long as he didn't attack Russia, China, Iran or Pakistan - and I don't see him doing any of that either. Whereas Hillary might attack Iran and/or Pakistan - and so might Obama, let alone the other fruitcake Republicans. And in the next few years, what happens vis-a-vis those two countries as well as Iraq will determine the economic and geopolitical future of this country.
Immigration, global warming, none of that is even close to the importance of foreign policy at this point - because a screwed up foreign policy diverts attention from those issues and diverts money from the economy to deal with those issues. Paul even makes the point that subsidizing the oil companies is part of global warming. He opposes Kyoto but is more than willing to come up with ways to fight global warming in concert with other countries. Changing the "war for oil" diktat is part of that.
And Paul is by far the best deal with regard to foreign policy than any Democrat or other Republican.
All pointless, of course, because he isn't going to win. But Gof's other point was that leftists who don't like Clinton or Obama crossing over and voting for Paul - at least in the primaries - would be a good thing:
"Cynthia McKinney is running Green, though she hasn't got the nomination yet. Remember Cynthia McKinney? When she broke with the DLC diktat, her own party fronted another Black woman (Denise Majette) to run against her in an open primary, and Republicans crossed over massively to vote in the Democratic primary to unseat her in a foregone Democratic Congressional district.
Two can play that game. If Cynthia McKinney runs in 2008 for President, I'll write her in if I have to just to burn a vote for Clinton or Obama. But meanwhile, Ron Paul is on our primary ballot (North Carolina), because he is running as a Republican (we have draconian ballot access conditions here for third-parties, thanks to -- of course -- Democrats)."
I'm just pointing all this out because I find it interesting that an avowed leftist like Gof is willing to go Libertarian instead of left Democrat - because there are no "left Democrats" in his view.
Which means tagging Obama as "identity left" really reflects how "right" Clinton is.
You're right, don't know why I'm spelling it with one F.
"So sayeth the campaign that looks for support from older women"
Exactamundo.
Well, it seems somewhat of a reversal of the 1990s criticism of the "identity left" to use it with respect to Barack Obama, given that the original use of the term was for those who were sub-dividing groups of people based on some sort of notion of an "authentic" identity, whereas Obama has pretty openly aimed to cross all those divisions.
But, sure, okay, other than being the complete opposite of what that term means, sure, okay.
It gets weirder.
It was the Clintons who not only rejected the "left" in general, it was they who openly embraced a project to undermine liberalism itself, along with lots of other establishment Democrats, many of whom are now found among, gosh, Obama's advisers.
So were the establishment figures who are now backing Obama part of some "identity left" now but were not part of the identity left then?
And would John Edwards therefore now be among the old and useless liberalism the Clintons worked so hard to rid the party of back then, while people like Dennis Kucinich remain part of some crazy fringe they still need not discuss?
And then anyone less establishment oriented than Dennis Kucinich is, what, Martian?
Always remember black folks, this is what white folks really think of you.
1) Hillary's entire strategy has been based on a different form of Identity politics -- the Cult of Personality. That she is the heir of Bill Clinton.
2) Unfortunately, that strategy is looking extremely shopworn. A long time Democrat that I know seeths with anger still whenever he talks about the Lewinski affair -- that the very Democrats who worked so hard and gave so much to elect Bill Clinton were hurt so badly by his immaturity and selfish irresponsibility.
3) In that regard, it's interesting to see the welcome Democrats are giving wild Bill in New Hampshire. From tomorrow's New York Times:
"DURHAM, N.H. — Is this what it would have been like had Elvis been reduced to playing Reno?
President Bill Clinton has been drawing sleepy and sometimes smallish crowds at big venues in the state that revived his presidential campaign in 1992. He entered to polite applause and rows of empty seats at the University of New Hampshire on Friday. Several people filed out midspeech, and the room was largely quiet as he spoke, with few interruptions for laughter or applause."
----------
This is especially revealing because campaigns go out their way to avoid embarrassing key politicans in this matter.
They have a database of local loyalists who are called up to stuff the seats at events if RSVPs suggest slack attendence.
Maybe this is impolitic. It seems undeniable that there would be (indeed, already have been) lots of really good consequences from Obama's political success that derive directly from his identity. The same would go for Hillary--to some extent--if she were doing better.
Electing the first Black President or the first Woman President is objectively good for the country. That's identity politics, I suppose, but so be it.
More info from the NY Times article re Bill Clinton's reception at several other campaign stops:
-----------
"But there was a similarly listless aura at the previous stop, in Rochester. And again, on Saturday in Bow, at just the sort of high school gym that the master campaigner used to blow out. Only about 225 showed up in Bow — about one-third the capacity of the room — to hear Mr. Clinton hit his bullet points on the subprime lending crisis, $100 barrels of oil and how “10 of Hillary’s fellow senators have endorsed her.”
“The crowd seemed very passive,” Arthur Cunningham of Bow said after the speech. “Maybe they were tired.”
------------
Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07bill.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"straight outta 1988"
Are you making a reference to the 1988's rap album Straight Outta Compton? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. Your criticism just reads much harsher if you are saying Clinton advisors see Obama as Eazy-E or Dr. Dre instead of Jesse Jackson.
but perhaps it's Hillary with the loose cannon . . .
Matt man,
Where's your commentary on the season opener for The Wire already? It's almost 3 hours after the premier and nada.
Priorities dammit!
"And then anyone less establishment oriented than Dennis Kucinich is, what, Martian?
Posted by El Cid | January 7, 2008 12:31 AM"
No, just Mike Gravel. But your overall point is really good. For all of their talk of discipline, they can't really run a tight ship just like how Bill never wore pants with a tight zipper. They're just flailing around at this point like King Kong getting shot at on top of the Empire State Building.
Wha... Clinton has explicitly said that a chance to vote for a woman President is a good reason to vote for her. Ugh. Policy-wise, I don't have any major problems with Hillary. But things like this - this is why I will not vote for her in the primary, and why she will lose and Obama will win. Everything out of her camp is negative.
"Are you making a reference to the 1988's rap album Straight Outta Compton? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. Your criticism just reads much harsher if you are saying Clinton advisors see Obama as Eazy-E or Dr. Dre instead of Jesse Jackson.
Posted by joejoejoe | January 7, 2008 1:09 AM"
Maybe he means Clinton is about to say Obama has AIDS or smacked Dee Barns or whatever her name was. Maybe she's trying to blame him for all of Ice Cube's crappy family movies. Also, if you haven't seen it, look up the Daily Show's report on the Congressional inquiry on rap music and how Congress handled things like swearing and what NWA's name means.
Josh Marshall has a post just up at www.talkingpointsmemo.com making a related, broader point, in part based on the experience he's had recently with members of the Clinton team pitching him what he characterizes as ridiculously ineffective anti-Obama stories.
Marshall suggests that the Clinton team just seems totally unprepared for the easily foreseen reality that they might not come in first in Iowa. I'm extrapolating a great deal here, but I think this is the kind of thing that can legitimately be put at the feet of the leader, i.e. the candidate. A secure, confident, yet prudent leader would make it clear to his or her team that they need to be prepared for all likely eventualities -- especially the challenging ones. After all, it's not too difficult to take advantage of a win in Iowa, especially if you're the front-runner. But responding to a loss, that's tough, and you can't afford to be unprepared and winging it.
Now just totally winging it myself, I'll hazard the guess that this has to do with HRC's personality. I rather suspect that she's just not someone who takes bad news or bad forecasts well. I bet people are subtly penalized for bringing them to her attention, rather than rewarded. That would certainly fit with what I've read about her handling of the health care task force back in '92-'93.
'He is the candidate of the "identity left",' said one, dismissively."
And By "Identity" We Mean "Black People"
They SOOOOO don't want to go down this road.
They don't seem to get it that if they choose to go down this road, there will be consequences for their actions. Folks who will become disgusted with them and stay home.
P.S.B. has done a LOT more harm to America than N.W.A..
So that's what the 'Identity Left' is! I thought it was just made up of progressives who defended Leibniz' Law.
It took me three times to read that before I realized it wasn't "identity theft."
As in, Obama is stealing Clinton's place in history.
"Electing the first Black President or the first Woman President is objectively good for the country."
In comparison to what?
What I think you mean is, "all other things being equal".
Except they aren't - and probably never will be. Get three essentially identical candidates, except one is white, one black, and one a female - then try it.
Good luck with that. The problem is: essentially identical. Never happen.
No, what matters is policy and character, not identity.
fwiw, here's a month-old blogpost that speaks to Yglesias's post about Clinton's peoples' Obamanation fulminations.
...........
Hillary on Obama: Fear and Hatred on the Campaign TrailBy David Corn | December 4, 2007
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/hillary-on-obama-fear-and-hatr.html
... When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it ...
"They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign.
"It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?"...
"They don't seem to get it that if they choose to go down this road, there will be consequences for their actions. Folks who will become disgusted with them and stay home.
Posted by rikyrah | January 7, 2008 1:51 AM"
There goes Bill's legacy as "the first black president." They go down this road, they are not only bigots, but they are traitors as well. His Coretta Scott King eulogy will be seen as a dishonest slap in the face of a civil rights activist.
Also, if you think about it, Edwards, the Southern populist who in some ways would be expected to be a greater inheritor of the Dixiecrat tradition (but not necessarily on race) has come to Obama's defense. The Senator from New York, raised in the state where Obama now lives and Lincoln's home state, has been more likely to sell racism on the campaign. Edwards makes Southern Democrats look good while Clinton is making us Northeasterners and Midwesterners look bad. Fuck her.
I tend to view Obama as a dishonest poser as well. Slick rhetoric does not impress me.
However, clearly Clinton thinks of herself as "Queen", not President, due the office by divine right of being a Clinton.
And of course, there's the issue of "projection" - if the Clinton supporters see Obama as a "dishonest poser", well, obviously that's how they see Hillary, subconsciously or consciously, too - with probably more reason.
Clinton banking on her lack of appeal to independents and republicans? This is just crazy. It's politics turned on it head. From the Edsall article:
"Clinton's calculation that she can best confront Obama in the coming closed Democratic primaries is based in part on detailed analysis of the Iowa results.The Iowa entrance polls conducted for all the major television networks - including ABC, CBS, NBC, AND CNN -- show that registered Democrats were more supportive of Clinton than either independents or the small number of Republicans who chose to participate in the Democratic caucus.
She virtually tied Obama among registered Democrats (31-32), while decisively losing independents (17-41) and Republicans (10-44). John Edwards beat her by slightly smaller, but still substantial, margins among Republicans and independents, while losing to her among Democrats."
That's definitely not going to help us in the general if she were to be the nominee.
As Obama's triumph in what Matt disparages as "lily-white" Iowa shows, Obama's supporters are primarily white people. They want to send a message about race, either to other white people ("I'm morally superior to you") or to blacks ("Time to stop whining about racism" and "Don't be so black. Be more Barack!").
As Matt would discover if he would ever deign to read his candidate's autobiography, which Obama helpfully subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance," the Senator himself is obsessed with issues of racial identity.
If Matt can't bear to read 442 pages of Obama's finely-wrought prose, Shelby Steele's "A Bound Man" insightfully summarizes the key aspects of Obama's identity crisis.
As Obama's triumph in what Matt disparages as "lily-white" Iowa shows, Obama's supporters are primarily white people. They want to send a message about race, either to other white people ("I'm morally superior to you") or to blacks ("Time to stop whining about racism" and "Don't be so black. Be more Barack!").
Oh bullshit. They want to elect the best person, the person who is most likely to undo the horrific damage done to our economy, our reputation and our very Constitution during the nightmare Cheney/Bush years.
You know, I've been afraid that a lot of Obama's appeal comes from the fact that he reassures white people that race doesn't matter. On the other hand, Steve Sailer not liking Obama means he can't be all bad.
Hm. This thread has been well hijacked by now, but am I the only one who doesn't necessarily read strong racial overtones into the Clinton supporter's comment? It strikes me as more of an old liberal/new liberal thing.
I mean, yeah, I get it -- it could be a coded reference to racial identity politics. It just seems more plausibly read as a dig at hippies.
Jim, I think it sounds to a lot of people like both. Like, if HRC were to openly complain that Obama hasn't done his "Sister Souljah" moment, and therefore isn't trustworthy on black politics, it would be both.
I really don't think that when they say "identity" they are referring to black. I read the phrase "identity left" as meaning “wine and cheese left” or “Volvo driving left” or something along those lines. The phrase makes no sense at all if you read it the way MY is reading it. That phrase is used after 4 straight paragraphs in that article about “. . . affluent, suburban and urban, socially tolerant white professionals . . .” so the logical inference is it is refering back to those types of people.
By the way, doesn’t Penn use all kinds of stupid phrases like that in that new(ish) book of his and generally when he talks about demographic break downs (a la David Brooks)? Could Edsall be using a phrase straight out of the book, and/or could he be using the phrase as a way to signal that the person who said it was Penn?
I took 'identity left' to mean those folks who have spent the last 18 months or so telling Hill that she's Wrong On The War (and Kyl-Lieberman and so on). The looser term for them is 'Democrats'.
How in the world can anyone in the HRC camp speak dismissively or derisively about 'identity' politics when HRC is constantly playing the female card? You can't get anymore affirmative action than that. Moreover, her opponent does not bring up race as a reason to vote for him, he has however had to respond to HRC's 'identity' attacks based on race.
The Clinton camp is spinning out of control. Afterall, everyone knows that Bill views women as nothing more than sperm receptacles which is what is contributing to HRC's lack of appeal to female voters when she tries to play the female card, whether it is 'the boys are ganging up on me' or 'vote for the first female President' Intelligent women understand that she has basically been Bill's clean up woman and just wants to ride on his experience and that is a female identity women born in the 70s and 80s shun.
HRC's identity politics, based on Penn's polling. totally backfired.
Women can't STAND her!!!!!!!!!!111
I'm a cracker who identifies as left, far left for the U.S. I've been telling all of my democrat friends that I'll be damned if I vote for Clinton in the general election, much less the primary.
She's always been the most viable Republican candidate in this cycle. I've been a little sick of her centrist gawddamned rhetoric for a long while. That her campaign is imploding and her operatives are tipping their hands to show their true right-wing orientation is no surprise.
Coming in late, but the Hillary people haven't learned anything since 1988. Their schtick worked in 1992 and 1996, but a lot of things have changed, especially since Gingrich took over the Republican Party 13 years ago, and they haven't seemed to notice.
"As Obama's triumph in what Matt disparages as "lily-white" Iowa shows, Obama's supporters are primarily white people. They want to send a message about race, either to other white people ("I'm morally superior to you") or to blacks ("Time to stop whining about racism" and "Don't be so black. Be more Barack!").
Posted by Steve Sailer | January 7, 2008 5:36 AM"
In other words, non-evil white people want to prove they aren't Steve Sailer.
Friends support us when we are right; and they warn us when we are wrong.
I was wrong.
I apologize, to my correspondent, to my friend who corrected me, and to all women.
Stan Goff, January 7, 2008.
http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/01/07/an-apology/
This will be my first time voting in a presidential election, though not my first time voting. I am an independent, though I recently registered as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primary (on the one hand because I want to ensure Guiliani does not become president and on the other because I agree with what most of Paul's positions, though not all).
I am an American Arab, and not particularly fond of the Democratic party, especially the Clintons and Obamas. Why? First of all, when my parents (and grandparents, for that matter) sent money to Clinton's 1992 campaign, their checks were rudely returned. I suspect this was for the same reason that their checks were returned by Michael Dukakis and by Walter Mondale. Perhaps because of the surname on the check? I'm not positive but I have always got the sense that there is quite the anti-Arab sentiment in the Democratic party "mainstream", even though this also exists in the Republican party. Many of the policies that have violated the civil rights of Arab Americans were begun under Mrs. Clinton's husband's term, and continued under Bush (even though he had "promised" not to do this).
The Clinton campaign has also used Obama's Muslim background as an insult, playing into anti-Muslim sentiment and attempting to convince the public that he is some kind of Muslim, as if this were a terrible thing. Obama on his part, has treated Islam as if it were some kind of a plague, doing his very best to make sure that he is not seen as having any connection to it whatsoever, as opposed to owning his own heritage, without being a Muslim, in a similar way that many other Americans of similar backgrounds do (his story is not so unique; my own family has the same religious composure, my father is Muslim, my mother is Christian (though Orthodox); my fiancee's family is of the same make up, and I went to high-school and presently university knowing many, many other people of various ethnicities with the same background. Very few of these people so staunchly and insultingly disassociate themselves from that background). The Democratic party, the foolish Bill Shaheen aside, seems to me to be a no go for Muslims and Arabs. There seems to be a serious lack of sincerity when it comes to discussing the protections of our civil liberties ("ours" as in Americans of Arab/Muslim origin and all Americans), especially if concerns specific to Arabs/Muslims are raised specifically. The hostility shown towards Obama's background by Mrs. Clinton only compounds this legacy of what I can only describe as disrespect and closet bigotry.
I am not saying that Republicans are perfect; in fact, they are -- to mind -- even more flawed in terms of their ideas and their understanding of American society than Democrats. However, I find it difficult to see a place for myself in the Democratic party, even on what this Clinton fellow calls the "identity left" (particularly since I am not quite a leftist). This is a concern that a great many people of Arab and Muslim heritage are having nowadays and it is one that, perhaps mostly because of our small numbers, is not being addressed by the candidates or their campaigns. Anytime I raise these issues with Clinton or Obama supports (even with Arab American supporters), the answer is that "this is the best we're going to get". Will someone involved with these campaigns ask that these issues be addressed and that this disrespect stop? Whichever Democrat who can do this at the national level will get one more vote.
Re Nouri Luhemiya's comment "I am an American Arab, and not particularly fond of the Democratic party, especially the Clintons and Obamas. Why? First of all, when my parents (and grandparents, for that matter) sent money to Clinton's 1992 campaign, their checks were rudely returned. I suspect this was for the same reason that their checks were returned by Michael Dukakis and by Walter Mondale. Perhaps because of the surname on the check?"
------------
Hey, Nouri, the biggest Democratic donor in 2000-2002 was an Israeli billionaire named Haim Saban --who chipped in around $14 Million.
Match that and I'll guarantee that the Democratic leadership will kiss your ass ,even if your last name is Bin Laden.
PS Joe Wilson and Valerie pretty well shot the Neocons' kneecaps off. Before you start feeling sorry for yourself as an Arab American, you might look at who Joe was working for around that time. I.e, Who was President of Rock Creek Corporation?
Live and learn, my son:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/bonus_peretz_blogging.php#comment-239113
"Hey, Nouri, the biggest Democratic donor in 2000-2002 was an Israeli billionaire named Haim Saban --who chipped in around $14 Million."
Obviously. And so taking money from advocates of one ethnic group means turning away the donations of another? How about if the Republican party refused to take the money of black voters? Not foundations, not lobby groups, just ordinary American citizens who happen to be black. I've never heard of campaigns sending back checks because they got enough money.
"Match that and I'll guarantee that the Democratic leadership will kiss your ass ,even if your last name is Bin Laden."
Quite frankly, I don't think they would. They've turned by large donations from American Muslim and American Arab organizations -- either accusing them of being anti-Israel or giving no reason whatsoever -- many times before.
There is a story about James Abourzek donating a check to Ted Kennedy. Abourzek handed Kennedy the check, and Kennedy, whom Abourzek considered to be a personal friend, flatly told him "I don't want to be associated with terrorism". Note that Abourzek founded an Arab American civil rights organization, which was the basis of this line of thinking. It is similar to the thinking of several other major Democrats when they reject the dollars of their Arab constituents; all the while having no trouble burning up their tax money, but that's a different issue.
Furthermore, I am not "feeling sorry for myself"; quite frankly, I feel quite happy to be an Arab-American. What I am not happy with is the extent to which Arab Americans are marginalized from the Democratic party. It is quite hypocritical for them to talk about being the party of civil rights and inclusiveness when they exhibit such obvious bigotry. At least Republicans are open about their biases. I am still looking for an explanation as to why Democratic candidates feel so free ignore Arab Americans (both Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Obama's states have massive Arab American populations, particularly Mr. Obama's home district from which he was state representative).
I don't see at what Elias Aburdene has to do with any of this.
Nouri, are you really supporting Paul and then lecturing Democrats about identity politics? Is there some wierd postmodern twist on supporting a racist who takes racists' money and supports racist policies, all the while decrying your political opposition for being racist?
Damn, son.
That's mighty funny.
I don't believe I can keep up, but you go on.
"Electing the first Black President or the first Woman President is objectively good for the country."
Was electing the first Woman Speaker of the House "objectively good" for the country in 2006/2007, beyond the swearing-in ceremony - to the extent that it overcomes the dreadful results of that woman's gross dereliction of duty during her first year as Speaker? Or did it bring so much baggage with it that Pelosi froze in place, unable to act for fear of damaging her "historic legacy" as the first female Speaker?
How about Condi Rice's tenure in office, as compared to her racial and gender identity?
Perhaps simply having Clinton and Obama as seriously competitive Democratic candidates in this campaign is as far as the "objective good" really gets, unless the person underneath the "identity" actually objectively merits the regard and support that their obvious gender and race "identity" accrues solely because of that obvious appearance or identity.
I suppose at least, though, that Nancy Pelosi and Condoleezza Rice have proven how unmagical, not to say damaging, the mere presence of a woman or an African-American woman is in a position of enormous power, when the underlying character and integrity of that individual is far less inspiring or laudable than the "historic" aspect of their mere arrival in high office is seen to be.
Nouri - I broadly concur with your perception, and it seems clear to me that Americans as a whole are pandered to by both entrenched political parties as though we are inherently racist toward Arabs/Muslims, as we are also assumed to be (and often are) about African-Americans and of course, increasingly, Hispanics (aka "illegal aliens").
It's a very ugly, but strong, undercurrent of this country, and though Obama doesn't seem to have the guts to confront this phenomenon head on, specifically or beyond vague platitudes when it counts (anymore than Clinton and Edwards seem to be doing), I think many Americans may read in to, or associate with, Obama's mere appearance an inherent dismissal of such prejudices which, ironically, Obama himself may never have the character or will to seriously address beyond his own 'being,' as it were (again, see Condi Rice).
This is where the long-lamented absence of "leadership" from our national figures is so desperately apparent. We absolutely need to be exhorted to stop demonizing the "other" and to instead refocus on the real dangers to, and strengths of, our nation - dangers which largely consist of the culprits John Edwards is loudly identifying for us at last: the control that corporate greed, corporate power, foreign government influence, and corporate manipulation of our "free press" all wield over our Congress and presidency to the almost-complete exclusion of we, the people, whose government this was painstakingly designed to be by way of a little something called the Constitution of the United States of America.
On Ron Paul:
1) He does not advocate racist policies, whatsoever.
2) His connections with white supremacists do worry me, and I said earlier, I do not agree with him on every issue every time. But I do agree with most of his ideas and most of his conduct. If he is a racist he does an excellent job of covering it up. He gets support from all over the place, some of them less savory than others. Many people who support the Democratic party dislike others who support it; e.g., you have the likes of Al Sharpton, who instigates race riots and spouts hate speech about shop keeps, Jews, Koreans, Pakistanis, etc. Ron Paul doesn't turn anybody's money away, which as its problems and is not something I agree with him on.
3) I support him partially (probably about half the reason) is to keep the likes of Guiliani, Thompson and other minors from making big showings. I see Guiliani as a dangerous man, and Thomson as a dim one.
4) Ron Paul doesn't play identity politics. I haven't heard him make the pretense of looking out for anybody's ethnic group specifically, which I like because it isn't as pretentious as, for instance, talking about being inclusive and then tossing away the money of people from X or Y group because another group gives more money, on the basis of their race.
Thank you "pow wow" for a thoughtful response.
But there is a deeper late modern undercurrent to the derisive claim that Obama’s candidacy has to do with identity politics. The dismissive Clinton supporter Edsall quotes is right that the Obama campaign is about identity. Specifically, it is about the effort to preserve and exalt personal identity through national identity in the face of the racial meanings, dynamics, and structures that fracture both personal and national identity. The self-identity of the individual, upon which citizenship, responsibility, and rights depend, is put into question by the radically non identical character of race. The Obama candidacy is therefore centrally a contest about race and the deeper disorders of the American political self that race reveals.
http://radicalnegative.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-race-and-american-identity.html
But there is a deeper late modern undercurrent to the derisive claim that Obama’s candidacy has to do with identity politics. The dismissive Clinton supporter Edsall quotes is right that the Obama campaign is about identity. Specifically, it is about the effort to preserve and exalt personal identity through national identity in the face of the racial meanings, dynamics, and structures that fracture both personal and national identity. The self-identity of the individual, upon which citizenship, responsibility, and rights depend, is put into question by the radically non identical character of race. The Obama candidacy is therefore centrally a contest about race and the deeper disorders of the American political self that race reveals.
Read on at:
http://radicalnegative.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-race-and-american-identity.html
Some of the harshest criticism I have read about Obama has been written by black leftists/activists. Obama is running a post-racial as well as post-partisan campaign so I don't see where the identity politics comes in.
Comments closed January 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
And she's the candidate of the corrupt center - if not the corrupt right.
Takes bribes from people like Marc Rich and AIPAC supporters to do what they want.
I'm not sure Matt is right when he aligns "identity left" with blacks. I think it could easily also mean simply the regular "left". Clearly Clinton is not and has never been a "leftist" by any definition of the term and clearly her crowd is dismissive of the Democratic "left".
Interestingly, Stan Gof, a radical leftist, has come in favor of...Ron Paul?
Monkeywrenching the System
Ron Paul's Revolution
By Stan Gof
http://www.counterpunch.com/goff01042008.html
Why? Because he thinks Ron Paul's efforts as President would do more harm to Big Military, Big Corporations and other enemies of the left than any of the Dem candidates.
Money quotes:
"I already know what I am going to hear from all over the program-intoxicated, "I won't endorse this-n-that position" liberal-left. Ron Paul is backward on abortion, passively racist, anti-immigrant, and on and on. Sorry, but I said I'd vote a dead cat that was anti-war before I'd vote a resurrected Eugene Debs if he showed up and supported the war. I meant that from my heart."
"He is a libertarian who dislikes corporate subsidies, so he would veto the mega-billion dollar subisidies for Big Agra, Big Pharma, nuclear power company insurance policies, Weapons-R-Us, the ADM/Cargill Great Ethanol Scam,et al. He could veto the federal highway spending that is promoting sprawl. He has also stated that he opposed so-called free trade agreements.
Hello?
Don't argue with libertarians when they are right. Many of them say that the leviathan-capitalists that dominate the world's economy could not get as big as they are in an unfettered and unsubsidized market. Newsflash: that is actually true.
Ron Paul is a Gold Bug. For the uninitiated, that means he believes dollar-value should be pegged to a gold-standard. The implications of a return to the gold standard by the Fed are grim... for Wall Street and the military, both of which depend on massive foreign loans covered by runaway printing presses. Putting a stop to this is a Good Thing. What is the net effect?"
"Ron Paul may have the most outrageous personal account of race you might imagine; but what is the most horrific social catastrophe in the United States for Black and Brown folk? You guessed it: the criminal (in)justice system. The malignant growth of the American Gulag has been fueled -- more than by any other cause -- by the ever-more-punative criminalization of drug use and drug addiction, and the ability fo the criminal justice system to apply this criminalization with special force against African America and Hispano-Latinas. Here's the thing. Paul opposes the criminalization of drugs. What is the net effect?"
"President Paul will not be writing legislation. The Executive Branch decides how strongly to enforce legislation... like domestic spying fer-instance.
President Paul would close Guantanamo, halt CIA kidnappings, and gut the enforcement capacity for the PATRIOT Act."
Of course, what Gof ignores is that while Paul could veto legislation, he couldn't do much else.
That's assuming he wasn't assassinated first.
Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 6, 2008 11:51 PM