Matthew Yglesias (March 17, 2008) - McCain and the Pale (Politics)

"Obama's positions on Iraq, climate change, health care, taxes reproductive rights, gay rights, etc..."

What's this about "reproductive rights"? Who doesn't have the right to reproduce in America? Retarded people?

Posted by Juan | March 17, 2008 12:47 PM

Obviously, the problem isn't with people who find his views compelling. The problem is with people who find his views slightly more attractive than McCains, but who also don't have strong opinions because they are low information voters.

Posted by Jim W | March 17, 2008 12:49 PM

The only thing I would add is that I actually doubt there are a substantial number of people who are going to find Obama's positions on Iraq, climate change, health care, taxes reproductive rights, gay rights, etc. compelling but then be turned off the campaign by some beyond-the-pale racial smears. People inclined to believe that any black guy is secretly out to get whitey are going to believe that no matter what anyone says or does and vice vera. And the same thing, more or less, goes for Clinton -- sexist assumptions are a problem for totally irrespective of what anyone says or does.

I think people are far more inclined to take seriously and even act (or vote) upon their otherwise ignored or subconscious racist and/or sexist biases at times and places when the culture lets them believe that there are lots of other people who believe like they do. Of course racists aren't likely to vote for Obama, but as the Avenue Q song says, "Everyone's a little bit racist...sometimes."

Posted by Antid Oto | March 17, 2008 12:49 PM

I just posted this on the "Four More Years" thread but it may be more relevant here:

This may surprise you guys, but one of my local [Georgia / Atlanta suburbs] right wing religious talk show hosts yesterday said that now he's more likely to vote for Obama since Obama stood by his church while denouncing the particular speech.

Apparently that's a big value in the conservative white Southern Christian community -- standing by your church.

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 12:50 PM

I like Obama and I'm repulsed by Hillary (and worry what McCain would do if he had one of his fits of rage in the midst of a delicate diplomatic situation).

But I don't think the attacks on Obama based on Rev. Wright are a racial smear. Was MY's post meant to suggest that? Wright comes off as seriously unhinged, and it's hard to believe that's a recent development. The questions that have arisen are completely legitimate (even if some--like Bill Kristol--do exaggerate and distort the issue).

Obama's written statement at the end of last week was a good start. But he has a lot of explaining to do. And plenty of people who aren't racist and might be inclined to like Obama are going to be seriously put off by some of this Wright stuff--I know I am.

Posted by jbd | March 17, 2008 12:51 PM

but it's not as if it's going to take racist comments for racists to notice that Obama's black.

I think the goal of such smears is to excite ineffable worries that people who we don't think of as racists or misogynists feel when they consider a black President or a female President. Not to have them think, "I don't want a black President," but have them think, "I'm not comfortable with Obama, though I don't know why."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 12:51 PM

What I do not get is where is the message coming from that Wright said anything about blacks being out to get whites?

Nothing I have listended to on his tapes says that in any manner shape or form.

Is this just some knee-jerk, angry black man so lets cower in fright as white folks reaction?

Cause there aren't any such words coming out of Wright's mouth.

Posted by gracie taylor | March 17, 2008 12:52 PM

What I do not get is where is the message coming from that Wright said anything about blacks being out to get whites?

Nothing I have listended to on his tapes says that in any manner shape or form.

Is this just some knee-jerk, angry black man so lets cower in fright as white folks reaction?

Cause there aren't any such words coming out of Wright's mouth.

Posted by gracie taylor | March 17, 2008 12:53 PM

I'd find your posit comforting if not for the fact a sizable portion of the electorate is either racist, misogynistic or both.

Posted by steve duncan | March 17, 2008 12:56 PM

JBD
I respectfully disagree, Wright does not come off as unhinged. He comes off as angry about the injustice and hypocrisy of America's policies.

Who would not be, if you had lived his life unable to work or get a job despite service as Marine to your country? Not to mention how intelligent he is about the history of America's foreign policy and bombing of other countries yet being outrage when we are bombed.

Who in their RIGHT MIND would not be outraged about just injustice and hypocrisy?

Have you ever listened to the speechs of Thomas Jefferson or Billy Graham or Frederick Douglas where they rant and exhort the body politic about America's arrogance?

Posted by gracie taylor | March 17, 2008 1:00 PM

Obama's big problem is that the press putting the spotlight -- finally -- on his spiritual mentor, perhaps the most important male influence on his adult life, reveals the phoniness of Obama's claim to be the postracial nonpartisan centrist healer. McCain is going to label Obama a BS Artist and the he's going to get a lot of traction with that charge because it's largely true. Obama is state of the art politician, but he's still a politician. McCain doesn't have a lot of strengths, but a reputation for saying what's on his mind is one of them, and it will contrast well with the phoniness of Obama's campaign.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 17, 2008 1:00 PM

That doesn't justify racist or misogynistic attacks on either, but it's not as if it's going to take racist comments for racists to notice that Obama's black.

True, but it remains to be seen how many voters might be swayed by a campaign to convince them that Obama is not just a black person, but that he's really "one of those black people." I.e. playing to some prejudice that isn't quite as crude as "all black people are bad," but not too far removed from that, given the right combination of signals and/or dog whistles.

Posted by Haggai | March 17, 2008 1:03 PM

jbd: I wonder just what you want Obama to do, bring you Rev Wright's head on a platter?

Since you claim to be an Obama supporter, I feel that is a legitimate question. And again, I agree that Wright does not come off as unhinged. I may disagree with many of his statements, even the non-inflammatory ones, but that doesn't mean I see him as unhinged.

Sailer, I don't know of anybody who ever claimed Obama is not a politician. Your statement he is one is an irrelevancy and stating the obvious. Now, would you provide evidence of the phoniness you attribute to Obama?

Posted by john m | March 17, 2008 1:08 PM

Is this just some knee-jerk, angry black man so lets cower in fright as white folks reaction?

Yeah, pretty much.

Posted by Antid Oto | March 17, 2008 1:09 PM

I think there are two things to consider.

I agree that actual racist, sexist, and the like don't need these revelations to vote against Obama or Clinton. The problem is that if our airwaves are saturated with this stuff, then it's harder to get voters to concentrate on what might make a difference to them.

The presidency is about identity politics more than any other election. There are more crossover votes in the presidental elections than any other. There's a core that will vote dem no matter what, there's a core that will vote republican, but the election is won or lost on those people who aren't married to their party that wins the election, and smears make a person appear less trustworthy, less of a leader. People will rationalize there prejudices so they feel better themselves, but once trust is broken in a person, reasonable things said no longer are compelling.
As long as McCain keeps his hands and mouth clean, the smears will be a net positive for the republicans.

Posted by Ken Payne | March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

john m: Don't bother engaging Steve Sailer. As you'll soon discover, it'll only make you feel dirty in the end.

Posted by Antid Oto | March 17, 2008 1:11 PM

Antid Oto has got a good point.

Posted by lemmy caution | March 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Wright is most likely the only adult BLACK male Obama could identify with as a mentor on core values. Core values of advocacy for the poor, community service and social injustice on the basis of race and economics. Values his mother instill in him. Issues he was unable to see through the prism of the black experience given being rasied by white folks.

However, as an adult Obama was able to become steeped in the history and culture of the black culture without it tainting his spirit and filling him with the frustration and anger of many black citizens. Wright is highly educated and that had to appeal to Obama intellectually as here was a man who could put things in historical and ethnocentric perspective.

Just because Wright could be bitter about what he endured being a child who came of age before the Civil Rights Act when Jim Crow flourished does not mean that his experiences would make Barack an angry black militant anymoreso than any other white person who listens to a black nationalist.

Obama's core and worldview was shaped long before he came to Wright thus Wright was a piece of the American puzzle to Barack. Obama simply sat and learned.

All of which allows Obama to appeal to diverse people and their cultures with an understanding of their need for human dignity.

Or what Obama calls " I have lots of pieces of America" within me.

As a child who lived in Jakarta, and who has a mother in a hut in Kenya as well as a maternal grandmother from KS along with a mother who was an antropologist Obama understands multiculturalism in ways that no other President ever has.

All of which will make him an outstanding global leader as well as domestic President given the rapidly evolving multiculturism of America as well as our shrinking globe.

America is indebted to the Chinese, Japanese, Korean governments and OPEC. The world economic markets are not in our favor at this time. America desperately needs a President who can engage people of different cultures with respect and understanding without hubris and arrogance.

Wright is only one piece of the puzzle that represents what Obama is.

Let's not get it twisted.

After all 3/4th's of the population in the world are people of color and America will be lucky to have a face of color representing us for the next decade as it will be very tumultuous.

A President who does not know how to place human values first will mean perpetually war for America.

Posted by gracie taylor | March 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Steve Sailer, Frank Schaeffer in the Huffington Post says that when his father, an evangelical preacher, preached similar things to what Reverend Wright preached, his father was affirmed as a godly man and was friendly with Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
There is a very clear, very obvious bias against black preachers and black culture. Would any white church be demonized by the media in this way? No. But since it's a church attended mostly by black folk, it's alright. They're only violent black nationalists. So, if you want to hold Reverend Wright's comments against Obama, go ahead. But it comes off as a little silly to say that Obama would look phony next to McCain who has changed his mind on lobbyists, tax cuts, and torture.

Posted by Morg | March 17, 2008 1:15 PM

I think what fundamentally happened is that Obama now has a kerry-like problem that Clinton has always faced: there is an easy way to smear him and turn off low information voters who aren't looking for the truth.

Obama needs to begin a media campaign to define himself because a large part of the country doesn't know him and won't beleive the best after hearing the worst.

This was always a hard election given the polarization of this country. This just made it harder. The democrats are going to have to move this discussion beyond this to specific issues. Fortunatly, the collapsing economy and the war provide a decent chance reporters will focus on issues.

Posted by Rhoda | March 17, 2008 1:17 PM

Agree on the bias- where is the outrage over Hagee? Claiming that New Orleans deserved Katrina has got to be at least as bad, right?

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 1:19 PM

What an odd post. Does Matthew really believe that nobody (er, no substantial number of people) who agrees with Obama's positions on Iraq, climate change, health care, taxes reproductive rights, gay rights, etc. would be put off by Obama's ties to Rev. Wright? Really?

Hasn't Matthew already noted that a substantial number of Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary believed that race was an important factor in how they voted? Is he sure that there people are all going to vote Obama in the general?

Posted by Al | March 17, 2008 1:20 PM

Steve Sailer -

There is no phoniness with Obama's campaign. No matter how hard you beat the Wright drum, Wright is not Obama any more than you are Camille Paglia. I recognize that this is the Clinton/right wing formulation du jour, but it won't endure because, well, it's totally stupid and feeds only those voters who would never vote for Obama in the first place.

This "issue" has been a get-out-of-jail-free card for a whole lot of crazies. And the more the crazies pile on, the crazier it will look.

Posted by nepat | March 17, 2008 1:22 PM

So Jesse Helms was wasting his ad budget?

Posted by aleks | March 17, 2008 1:27 PM

On the other hand, if Camille Paglia really were Steve Sailer, at least it would be interesting.

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 1:27 PM

Ok that was a dumb comment of mine, obviously Helms' actual opponents were black so he had to dig a little deeper to stir up the racists.

Posted by aleks | March 17, 2008 1:29 PM

Sailer's 'phoniness' tag is kind of amusing. In this case, I think he really doesn't get it. In actuality, there is nothing contradictory about Obama's rhetoric and his foundation.

Obama is not centrist. That's one thing to remember. But he does believe that the current political framing of issues leads to broken solutions. And he claims to be able to move beyond that (post-politics and all). This is not inconsistent with his pastor's views that America is f*cked up. But Obama takes that perspective and reworks it into a narrative that he thinks will empower him as a politician to make valuable changes. Americans will agree that politics is screwed up, but they won't elect the negative guy. They'll elect the guy who gives them hope. Obama's message leads him in the right direction from the perspective of his foundation, but his message gives him the means to achieve his goals.

Some people refuse to accept how f*cked up everything is. People like Sailer who desperately believe in the great glory that is the American White Nation, could not accept this kind of premise. But many of them do acknowledge that we need a change. Obama promises that change. If you knew everything about his foundation, you might be turned off by him - that's why Obama needs to be careful on this issue. And he may or may not ultimately implement policies that you agree with. A 'change' politician can be something of a blank slate. But Obama's change/post-political message isn't phony in the least.

Posted by mpowell | March 17, 2008 1:33 PM

Ok that was a dumb comment of mine, obviously Helms' actual opponents wereN'T black so he had to dig a little deeper to stir up the racists.

Shit. Goodnight.

Posted by aleks | March 17, 2008 1:35 PM

John M, you ask a fair question, so I'll give you my best answer: Obama did a good job last week of suggesting there's more to Wright than these sound bytes (former Marine, biblical scholar, minister to the poor, etc.) That's helpful.

What I didn't understand was Obama's statement that he wasn't present for Rev. Wright's statements that have been quoted in the press--and I think this claim could cause problems for Obama. OK, he wasn't there when the notorious videotaped statements were made. But is it plausible that during all of their years of association, Obama was not present for, or aware of, any similar wild statements by Wright, such as that the US deserved 9/11, or the government intentionally unleashed AIDS on the black community?

By claiming he wasn't present, Obama has ignited a frenzy of journalistic activity to find evidence that he WAS present for some equally incendiary stuff. My guess is that eventually such evidence will be found, and Obama will still be in the hole (or perhaps in a deeper one, for having tried to finesse the issue).

I suspect the truth is that when Obama moved to Chicago as a talented and earnest Harvard Law grad, but a stranger to the community, he found the church a good place for both worship and networking in the South Side. That helped him do good works as a community organizer, and also helped him launch his political career--a mixture of altrusim and self-interest may have been at work. And for that mixture of purposes, he was willing to ignore some of the nasty rhetoric in the church over the years. It's easy to see how that choice could be rationalized. Maybe the greater good outweighs the occasional bile.

But if that's the truth, I don't know how it would fly with lunchbucket white voters, and truthfully I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. Maybe he can explain it in a way that makes sense--or maybe I have it all wrong. But his intial response at the end of last week at least implied that he did not know over the years that Rev. Wright was making such outrageous statements. I don't think that story will fly, and it really could explode in his face.

Posted by jbd | March 17, 2008 1:47 PM

Look, most people vote on a pretty visceral level. My Mom (voted Democrat every time in her life) told me after the Connecticut primary she'd rather have "Bill and his interns" than Michelle in the White House. It's a symbolic office as well as an executive one, and if you think most people are going to vote on his climate change positions, you have a lot to learn about politics. Pre-Wright, Obama could seem like a political Tiger Woods, a genuinely post racial hybrid candidate. Michelle and Jeremiah make that a much tougher, probably impossible sell. Rasmussnen notes his "favorability" rating has dropped 17 (!) percentage points since Feb. 21st. And his middle name is Hussein. It's amazing, and a testament to his quite strong abilities, that he's gotten as far as he has. What he's experiencintg isn't a "smear"--it's hardball--what a presidential candidate would normally have to expect.

Posted by otherScott | March 17, 2008 1:51 PM

I think Matt's formulation is a little simplistic. Certainly dyed-in-the-wool racists aren't going to vote for Obama, but I think there are a lot of people in this country who fall into some sort of middle ground between "racist" and "not racist," people who can be perfectly fine with black people but need a little convincing, and for whom rumors like this flying around aren't going to go into the "plus" column in their mental ledger of the candidates.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 17, 2008 1:55 PM

jbd, thanks for the civil response.

Part of the problem is that it becomes Obama trying to prove a negative, which is next to impossible. It also works on the assumption that Wright made the comment relative to 9/11 several times, that it was a consistent part of his preaching. There is, however, no evidence of that.

Did Wright use a lot of rhetoric that many, mostly white, people would have difficulty with in their churches. Possibly, and in fact probably.

However, that is not uncommon in primarily black churches. So the question becomes on of at what level and how many times must rhetoric be repeated for it to taint someone who happens to be listening to it?

As I mentioned on another thread, Wright's statement that "Hillary has never been called a n***" although hevay rhetoric is not racist, but rather very understandable in the setting. It also happens to be accurate.

Again, the demand, for that is what it is, for Obama to prove that he not only never heard these comments in person (more than once) but that he did not object to them is like when Bush demanded that Saddam prove he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. It ended up the lack of ability to prove the absence proved to be the greatest evidence evidence of the presence (which, of course, is an absurdity.)

Posted by john m | March 17, 2008 2:07 PM

If Obama were a “phony” he'd have joined a suburban Chicago church for wealthy Yuppies where everyone arrived in their upscale Lexus with 2.5 kids in tow, sporting $1500 silk ties, and talking about their stock portfolios after service. But for whatever reason Obama didn't do that.

What Obama needs to do - as in right now, before the media defines the terms - and what Obama should have done a long time ago - is tell America why he was drawn to the church in the first place. Why was Wright a mentor to him? What did Obama see in this man?

Obama doesn't strike me as a flake or a man with piss-poor judgment. He should tell us what moved him to Wright and to the church spiritually even if he disagreed with his preacher’s more explosive statements. (We all disagree with our mentors, teachers, parents - that’s no big deal.) The media version emerging of Wright is cartoonish. There is bound to be more there. Has the man done great things? Did he spread the gospel to the poor or the sick or the downtrodden in a way others were simply not doing? Oprah likewise attended UCC. What was her reason? Obama should honestly tell us why he was drawn to him; indeed there may be a very powerful argument for being drawn to him, was he incorruptible for instance, did he put the needs of his flock above that of shady Chicago politics, did he live the words of Jesus more convincingly than others? Obama needs to do this right now though, before people draw their own conclusions.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 2:16 PM

I like Richard's post, and it suggests an idea: Maybe Obama should ask Oprah to explain the church before he does, to pave the way. No snark. I'm serious.

Then, if Obama gives the best speech of his life, perhaps explaining how racial divides can cause good people to think the worst of each other and say some crazy things, maybe he can defuse this thing.

But I still think it's a tall order.

Posted by jbd | March 17, 2008 2:26 PM

mccain's interview on hannity was fascinating. a little scary at times, i thought (like this) but in the end, he tended to avoid jumping into the fray of the clinton / obama controversies. that can only be good for him.

Posted by tony | March 17, 2008 2:27 PM

mccain's interview on hannity was fascinating. a little scary at times, i thought (like this) but in the end, he tended to avoid jumping into the fray of the clinton / obama controversies. that can only be good for him.

Posted by tony | March 17, 2008 2:29 PM

Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith discuss the McCain campaign's relationship to the inevitable (and, indeed, already underway) smears against Barack Obama. Basically the view is that McCain will disavow this stuff, and fairly sincerely, but that won't stop it from happening and won't stop him from benefitting:

And it won't stop Martin and Smith from helping spread them either. After all, both work for right wing outfits.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 17, 2008 2:30 PM

Richard says:
Obama doesn't strike me as a flake or a man with piss-poor judgment. He should tell us what moved him to Wright and to the church spiritually even if he disagreed with his preacher’s more explosive statements.

Obama was drawn to the church for their community outreach programs which are the largest in Chicago. That's clear.

The church also helped Obama earn his black bone fides.

The number one question that began this campaign was
Is he black enough?

Just as Wright said in the sermon.

No matter whether Obama disagreed with Wrights most incendiary statements he would not leave that church due to the community outreach programs which made Wright only one facet of why Obama was there.

More than likely, Michelle Obama has been a member of Trinity Church of Christ longer than Obama as they were married there.

Not to mention that Oprah also was a member of Trinity.

Obama did not have to answer if he was black enough to the black community when he said he was a member of Trinity.

Now whitefolks demand to know why he was willing to be black enough to be a member at Trinity for 20 years.

Obama is biracial. In struggles with issues of race in ways whites clearly do not get even though they ask 'is he black enough"

That has never been Obama's social problem in America. The question Obama has wrestled with every day of his youth was 'is he white enough' as his mother tucked him in to sleep each night.

Obama deserves our compassion not our divisiveness at this time. He deserves greater understanding.

It is not his character and judgment that we should question but the very racism at the core of this society that create such angst in an individual as a child and an adult when they are biracial and need to own all pieces of their identity to be whole.

Posted by vicissitudes | March 17, 2008 2:37 PM

Mr. Yglesias - Let me preface my comments by letting you know that I am bi-racial (white father, mixed race, including black, mother).

In spite of your assertion that anyone taking exception to the Rev. Wright's comments must, ergo, be racist, let me assure you that is not the case.

The Rev. Wright's comments are blatently racist - only, in this case, it is reverse racism. That does not make those comments any more acceptable to me, or any other non-racist American. Racism is racism, no matter where it comes from, and it is just as repugnant to me whereever its source.

Senator Obama's dissemblings aside, the fact remains that he attended this church for 20 years, by choice. True, every church has a pastor with whom some of the parishoners disagree with on occasion. But NO ONE stays with a church for 20 years when they "vehemently reject and denounce" the views regularly expressed by their pastor. They just don't. They leave, and find another church whose views are agreeable to them.

Senator Obama's claim that, in 20 years of close and admiring association, he had NO idea that Rev. Wright held such views is flatly unbelievable. The rest of Rev. Wright's congregation knew. Obama's campaign managers knew. His advisors knew. Even Oprah knew, since she attended the church briefly, and left.

What kind of bubble was Senator Obama in, that he failed to hear, or hear of, ANY of these remarks? And, if you wish to believe such an incredible statement, should a person so clueless be POTUS?

I think not.

I am a person of color in a society that is undeniably tilted towards advantaging Caucasians. I am not disputing that. But I am much more than that.

I am, first and foremost, an American. I despise our current administration, but I do not despise America.

And "God DAMN America!" is just not going to work for me. These are words I vehemently reject and denounce. I will never vote for Senator Obama.

Posted by Vanessa | March 17, 2008 2:38 PM

I think Vanessa's view is reasonable. And it's why I think this issue will be very tough, if not impossible, to defuse.

Posted by jbd | March 17, 2008 2:53 PM

I think it's important that someone eventually bring that "God damn America" line into context, because it's simply being distorted and widely misused. It seems at least to me (a foreigner admtitedly and an outsider) that even in the context of that speech, it was a denounciation of America in its current form.

Incindiary as it may be, in context the remark was regarding the types of policies enacted by the American government. God damn America is harsh, but certainly allowable (of all places at a church) when preaching for social justice. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human" while offering up a list of things that dehumanizes them, then putting on a condition on it doesn't make it un-American anymore than disagreeing with the war or disliking types of policies.

The words may have been poorly chosen (especially because of the impact they may have as soundbites) but it does come to the heart of an American paradox. America doesn't always live up to its promise for all of its citizens, is it so bad that someone demands that it try to, and not give it unrestricted blessings when it doesn't?

Obama seems to have taken that message, softened it and made it into not a message of castigation as Wright had, but more one of hope. America can be better, it can live up to its ideals and its principles and not be divided in the way it has.

It seems important to me that the American people have a candidate who represents not only the affluent, proud suburbanite America, but can also pull along the disillusioned, angry and yes often disenfranchised part of America, and unite it under the American ideal.

It seems to me that Obama has that potential to gulf that divide, and perhaps the ugliness which is going to come in the coming days about the simple fact that he's black may very well force people to confront their subconscious prejudice, rather than resort to it.

Is it really the issues you're divided on or the color of the candidate's skin and worries you have about a racial conflict? America has long denied the huge, lingering racial problems which exist in the country, and perhaps it's due time to actually confront, denounce and get over it.

Posted by Nob Akimoto | March 17, 2008 3:10 PM

Until you see proof that Obama shares the same views- and there is none yet- why would you punish him for the words of his pastor? The man was raised by his white mother and her white parents. I'm going to assume he doesn't hate white people.

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 3:19 PM

Please don't trot out Obama's white mother at this stage of the game. The candidate himself has ignored her in favor of claiming his racial heritage exclusively from the father who abandoned them both.

So did the Rev Wright, when he said that Hillary could not know what it was like to be raised as a black boy by a single mother. (Not "a black boy by a single white mother".) This, in a sermon excoriating whites for the evils visited upon blacks.

No one saw fit to point out that THAT white, at least, harbored no evil master plan to keep the black race down.

He sat in a church for 20 years, and listened to Rev Wright lambast and revile his mother's race. And he sat.

I would have walked out after the first such sermon, and never looked back.

Posted by Vanessa | March 17, 2008 3:29 PM

Vanessa

Did you grow up without a father or mother figure that looked like you were defined racially by society?

Posted by vicissitudes | March 17, 2008 3:34 PM

Fascinating. Barack Obama went to Columbia, was President of Harvard Law Review, was elected to the United States Senate, and is now running to President. And Vanessa is honestly offended because she thinks he hates white people (he never defended his mother from Reverend Wright's vicious attacks!) and we just can't have that in a President can we. Get real.

Posted by Barbar | March 17, 2008 3:40 PM

Vanessa,

At no time did Obama reject his mother. You just seem to be insensitive to how society defines folks racially independent of their heirtage based on how they look racially.

Obama was defined as black by society. What he lacked were any adult figures able to teach him how to navigate as an individual treated as a black person in a racist society.

If sounds as if you were fortunate enough to have both parents and may even still be struggling with the forces in society that place tremendous pressure upon you to chose thus creating lots of angst as you would have to reject one of your parents.

Can you name one racist statement that you heard from Wright. Wright was addressing the power structure of our government which is white. He was not hatemongering.

What Wright did was point out the hypocrisy of America's policies in terms of how we treat our neighbors global as well as the injustice of poverty and racism that America imposes on folks of color. Nothing racist about that. It is simply the unvarnished truth stated unapologetically and vehemently.

Stating views forcefully or passionately does not make them racist views just because the individual voicing them happens to be a black person.

Billy Graham, Falwell and Roberts have said equally strong comments about America and how she is damned due to moral corruption.

Your post sounds like you want to blaming the victim.

You also seem to lack empathy for what it is like to grow up as a black male without a father in the home who experiences your same social issues.

The fact that our prisons are disproportionately full of black males speaks volumes about how devastating that is for black males even when their mothers are black.

Obama is not a female and their is an avalanche of data that shows how deleterious it is to males to be raised without a father and this is highlighted even moreso in the black community when you look at the far greater success of black females vs. males who are raised in single female heads of household.

Posted by vicissitudes | March 17, 2008 3:46 PM

The candidate himself has ignored her in favor of claiming his racial heritage exclusively from the father who abandoned them both.

Hmmm. Let's see, www.barack....

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where he grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British.

Barack's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in small-town Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression, and then signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, where he marched across Europe in Patton's army. Her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved west to Hawaii.

It was there, at the University of Hawaii, where Barack's parents met. His mother was a student there, and his father had won a scholarship that allowed him to leave Kenya and pursue his dreams in America.

Barack's father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University in 1983.

http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php

See? SEE???!!!

Barack Obama didn't even mention that his father was black!!! He's trying to hide that fact in his own campaign biography! ZOMG!!!

How are we supposed to know that a black dude is running if he don't even say it in his biography of his parents???!!!

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 3:52 PM

The quote below is from a press availability last week. This is a guy speaking off the cuff while standing up in the aisle of a plane and damned if it isn't the most thoughtful, gracious, deeply moral response to a question designed to prod him into "going negative." See also the transcript of his Tribune interview, his remarks in Indiana over the weekend (I thought that *was* his big speech on race--it was great), etc.

Anyone who decides that Obama is a phony or a race-baiter or white-hater or otherwise unacceptable choice based on hearing selected soundbites of his pastor, simply isn't paying attention. Now it may be that there are lots of low-info voters (and blog posters) who fall into this category. But I have to hope that most voters, given time and more exposure to Obama, will see past this and we can move on... to slightly more important issues like the collapsing economy and the disaster in Iraq. Or, for that matter, Hillary's tax returns!

Q: You’ve talked a lot about moving beyond the divisions of the past, and I’m just wondering if you’re dismayed the extent to wish race has become an issue in this campaign, and if you are concerned that the divisiveness over this issue and the Ferraro comments, even going back to South Carolina beyond this one week and this one incident?

BO: Well as I said yesterday, I do think it’s unfortunate, it’s not entirely unexpected. As I said before, race and gender issues are very powerful in our society. They’ve been an organizing principle in our politics since the early days of this country. It would be naïve to think that we could just brush them aside, and I know that sometimes Senator Clinton and others accuse me of being naïve, but I’m not naïve enough to think that we’re going to solve the country’s racial problems and some of these other divisions in the span of six months or a year. What I do think is that our campaign has pointed towards the future, an era where these distinctions are less prominent in our politics. The fact that we have attracted so many young people to this campaign indicates the degree to which each generation makes progress in recognizing that gender or race should not be a barrier to success or opportunity and that we should be judging people on the content of their character and not physical attributes. My belief is that we’re making progress in fits ands starts in this campaign. The ride’s always going to be bumpy, and there are going to be times where these issues flare up, but my hope is that in the conduct of my campaign, in my supporters and the generally very positive response of voters to the tone of the campaign, that we will have moved the ball forward as a consequence, and I think that’s happened.

Posted by Ruth | March 17, 2008 3:56 PM

"Please don't trot out Obama's white mother at this stage of the game. The candidate himself has ignored her in favor of claiming his racial heritage exclusively from the father who abandoned them both."

Vanessa is either a troll or a moron, likely both.

Posted by Jennifer | March 17, 2008 4:23 PM

I can understand what jbd is saying. It is one thing to hear about Obama's pastor being problematic but when you see the video clips you reacti viscerally because they are so in your face. I acknowledge that some of things he said were correct but expressed inflammatory fashion (such as this country is being controlled by rich white people, etc). The problem for me are statements or actions that are truly indefensible such as the God damn America comment or simulating an act to describe what Bill Clinton did to blacks as he did Lewinsky. They are very vulgar. My impression is that this guy is complex but carried away with his rhetoric which is really gratuitous. You don't need to say God damn America to talk about social ills inflicting the country.

Posted by Micheline | March 17, 2008 4:24 PM

I can understand what jbd is saying. It is one thing to hear about Obama's pastor being problematic but when you see the video clips you reacti viscerally because they are so in your face. I acknowledge that some of things he said were correct but expressed inflammatory fashion (such as this country is being controlled by rich white people, etc). The problem for me are statements or actions that are truly indefensible such as the God damn America comment or simulating an act to describe what Bill Clinton did to blacks as he did Lewinsky. They are very vulgar. My impression is that this guy is complex but carried away with his rhetoric which is really gratuitous. You don't need to say God damn America to talk about social ills inflicting the country.

Posted by Micheline | March 17, 2008 4:25 PM

Look, at some point Obama was going to face questions about Wright and his church. That was inevitable, and I think it is much better to have them brought up now, let Obama work on damage control, and even making this into a plus of sorts. It lets him clean up the story long before the general, lets him speak out and make a strong statement, and allows him to define himself clearly as a Christian. This story may be awkward for a week, but it's unlikely to run beyond that. This is not the end of the Obama campaign, rather, it's more likely to be the making of it. If Obama can win this one, and I think he can, he has a greatly strengthened campaign.

Posted by yilderim | March 17, 2008 4:41 PM

"Mr. Yglesias - Let me preface my comments by letting you know that I am bi-racial (white father, mixed race, including black, mother)."

Well, I'm a white male, age 25-49, so everyone listens to me. So, what do I think?

Vanessa leads us to believe that Wright says America and whites suck:

"In a fiery sermon in April 2003, Wright said: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. “No! No No! “God damn America … for killing innocent people.“God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.“God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

Sounds to me that the Pastor is lecturing America for its social injustice, arrogance, and general sinfulness. Seems like a reasonable thing for a Pastor to peach about.

"“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye,” Wright said.“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

Sounds about right.

Listen, Vanessa, while you're waving your little flag and singing Lee Greenwood's lastest drivel, perhaps you should take a moment and consider that guilt by association is rather un-American. If not, then perhaps you should be prepared to walk out on every close friend or relative or mentor or pastor that ever said something intemperate or mean or disagreeable or even controversial ("Have you now or have you ever been controversial?").

Obama has condemned and rejected Wright's statements. He has said that he does not agree with the context of those statements. Seems reasonable. Personally, I don't have a problem with the quotes above, though I'm sure there are others of Wright's I would disagree with. Although I'm not a member of Obama's church, generally, that's how the preacher-parishioner relationship works (are you taking notes, Sailer?.

What is unreasonable is to expect Obama to invent a time machine to go back and walk out of the church. What is unreasonable is to assume that Obama hates his mother or to assume that Obama would seek to cause his mother pain. What is unreasonable is to assume that another's racial experience mirrors your own or that those experiences give you some sort of special insight into another's psyche a la’ Shelby Steele who constantly and consistently (at least he's consistent) confuses empathy with projection.

."The candidate himself has ignored her in favor of claiming his racial heritage exclusively from the father who abandoned them both."

Finally, it is unreasonable to assume that you can read someone's mind and to make claims that are not substantiated by words or deeds.

Posted by Rihilism | March 17, 2008 4:47 PM

vicissitudes - Please don't assume anything about me.

I have experienced plenty of racial discrimination from society. I do not look to society to define me; I define myself, and I am bi-racial. Because of my racial heritage, I do not really look like either of my parents. I am darker than my father, and whiter than my mother. In any case, I am clearly, visibly, not caucasian. And I don't have a problem with that. But, over the years, other people have.

I have been chided by blacks to call myself "black". I have been advised that my failure to do so is "denying my race". I have been reminded frequently about the "one drop rule". I don't care. And here's why:

I am 50% white. Why am I supposed to deny the white half of me to suit some outdated plantocracy nomenclature, or someone's political agenda? Why am I supposed to deny my Indian/ Chinese grandfather on my mother's side? Why, indeed, am I supposed to deny any part of my heritage, in order to fit someone else's narrow view of "race"?

On the flip side, I have been called N****** on more than one occasion. I have been threatened by white racists with physical harm in various forms. I have been at business functions where people talked to the white folks in my group, without ever acknowledging my presence. I have had people pretend that they didn't see my outstretched hand. I have been ignored by salespeople while they waited on whites. I have had white cops in "white" towns pull me over for no reason except to check my license and registration. And on and on. I have PLENTY of those stories.

So please don't tell me that I don't know what it means to be black in this country. This is not about racial denial. I am fully aware that "society" will never mistake me for caucasian. I am fully aware that there are numerous disadvantage to that. But that's "society's" problem. I will continue to define myself on my own terms, and those terms include all parts of my heritage, not just one.

I am female, true, but that does not make my experiences any less valid than they would be if I were male.

Barack had a choice: He could claim his own, unique and multi-racial identity, or he could accept the limiting definition "society" chose to place on him.

As someone who chose the former, I can tell you it is not an easy road. Being "bi-racial" or "multi-racial" makes a lot of people uncomfortable because they can't pigeonhole you.

It IS time to move beyond race. But that is not what Rev. Wright is preaching. Obama didn't choose to move beyond race, he chose to move INTO it.

As for "blaming the victim", let me tell you now that I am nobody's victim. I will never be anybody's victim. And to me, by blaming white America for the woes of the black community, Rev Wright cements a culture of victimization. And victims have no power. The non-white community cannot control the actions and thoughts of ignorant, racist whites. But we can control our response to it. Accepting that you are a victim whose only recourse is anger, is not productive. It solves nothing.

It is not a message of Hope. It is not a message of Change. It is not a message of Unity.

And it is a mesage I reject.

Posted by vanessa | March 17, 2008 4:48 PM

Vanessa, you sound as if you have totally missed what Obama is saying. He works extremely hard to emphasize that this is not about race, and that he is proud of his multi-racial heritage. I just can't see that part of your argument holding up.

Posted by maraschion | March 17, 2008 4:56 PM

Thanks Vanessa, now that you mention it, I see how little I've accomplished in life with my victim mentality. Columbia, Harvard Law, President of the Law Review, Illinois State Senate, Senate, now frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President. Can you give me some more tips so that I can rise to your level of success?

Posted by Barack Obama | March 17, 2008 4:59 PM

I don't know Vanessa, but find what she is saying sounds both heartfelt and attractive. And judging from the tracking polls, which show a significant Obama drop, vs. both Hillary and McCain, what she is saying is being experienced on some level by quite a few Americans.
All the triumphalist snark seems to have left the obamabots, for the moment. That's a good thing at least.

Posted by otherScott | March 17, 2008 5:05 PM

More bio information for the vannessa-Haters:

I'm not a troll. I am not a moron. I don't listen to Lee Greenwood (whoever he is). I am not trying to read anyone's mind. I am looking at the actions made over a period of time. I am not judging Obama or his pastor on the basis of one reprehensible statement, but a pattern of words and actions. I am not assuming anyone's racial experience mirrors my own. Our lives are unique. I made my choice. Obama made his.

And finally, I have the right to my opinion. If belittling and insulting me gives you some kind of personal satisfaction, go right ahead. I know who I am. I like who I am. And some disrepectful and mean-spirited posts on the Internet will not change that.

Carry on.

Posted by vanessa | March 17, 2008 5:08 PM

Vanessa, no one here cares about you. The reason people think you're a troll and a moron is because you are making silly statements about the subject of discussion, Barack Obama. For example, "I made my choice. Obama made his." Of course you criticism of Obama's choice is not based on any of his hundreds of speeches, not based on his best-selling books, not based on his internet website, not based on his record as a public servant. It is based on a 15-second sound clip of a minister who in turn has delivered hundreds of talks over the years and cannot be defined by one sentence.

You are going on and on about the complexity of life and yet you can summarize Obama's position on race with one sentence that's not even his. Hence: idiot and troll. Sorry, just calling it like I see it.

Posted by Barbar | March 17, 2008 5:15 PM

Vanessa's consistently failed to prove that Obama shares Wright's views. My father is an extremely right-wing neocon who thinks the war in Iraq was worth it. I am a flaming liberal who thinks Bush and Cheney should be rotting in jail cells. I would get really pissed off if someone criticized me for all the wrong things my father believes in. But he's still my dad, and he's taught me good things as well. So a big "Bite me" to anyone who tells others to completely cut influential people out of their lives while knowing only a tiny fraction of the whole story.

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 5:16 PM

Vanessa -

So, because Obama chooses to not walk away from his church, like you would, he's embraced victimization? You do not wish to be pidgeon-holed, yet you pidgeon-hole Obama by the company he keeps and by the church he goes to? Because he supposedly made a choice that you would not? (BTW, I don't think he's made the choice you accuse him of making).

It is not a message of Hope. It is not a message of Change. It is not a message of Unity.
And it is a mesage I reject."

Yes, and as has been stated here and elsewhere (by Obama on Fox News, for crying out loud!), Obama has rejected Wright's statements. Wright's statements, not Obama's. Oh, and did I mention that Obama rejected them?

I'm really not sure what else Obama could do to sate your desire that he respond to racial divisions in this country in the exact manner that you have. Especially since his response has been positive, affirming, and hopeful, rather than angry, victimized and bitter. Perhaps if Obama brought Wright's head on a platter, as john m suggested earlier, you'd be satisfied...

Posted by Rihilism | March 17, 2008 5:27 PM

"All the triumphalist snark seems to have left the obamabots, for the moment."

I will NEVER relinquish my triumphalist snark!

I shall snark in France, I shall snark on the seas and oceans, I shall snark with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, I shall snark on this blog, whatever the cost may be, I shall snark on the beaches, I shall snark on the landing grounds, I shall snark in the fields and in the streets, I shall snark in the hills; I shall never surrender my triumphalist snark!

Posted by Rihilism | March 17, 2008 5:42 PM

This is more about optics than anything else. Most white Americans are shocked to hear a preacher saying "God Damn America" etc. They could read about it but seeing the video strikes many people as utterly beyond the pale.

There is a perfectly good reason why Obama went to TUCC, just as there is for thousands of other Chicagoans - many of them the elite of black Chicago. He cherishes the pastoral relationship he had with Wright. And clearly some of the sermons, notably Audacity to Hope, were genuinely positive affirmations of human spirit. The totality of Jeremiah Wright is not defined by those sermons on TV. I know that and so am completely untroubled by Obama's attendance at that church.

But a lot of people don't know that. They can't see why someone would attend a church whose pastor would even once say these things. Ironically, enough, some conservative Christians have been the biggest defenders of Obama here because they know their own pastors damn America (for legal abortion, homosexuality, etc.) all the time and they appreciate that Obama is standing by his church. But for the non ultra religious and also non highly educated in black history, these remarks strike as unconscionable. It's just the shock.

So what can Obama do? He can't ignore it. Most Americans do not understand black history beyond the comic book version where MLK magically saved the day in the 1960s - and where MLK has now morphed into a conservative. In fact, many Americans believe reverse racism is a bigger problem than real racism, even though reverse racism is largely a fantasy. Wright's comments feed into that racist paranoia bubbling just below the surface for many white people.

So he has to hit it head on. He needs to explain, in detail, what drew him to TUCC, what drew him to Wright, what he cherished about Wright and TUCC over the years, what he really did hear from the pulpit at TUCC, and, most importantly, how he drew a conclusion about race so opposite to the anger and cynicism of Reverend Wright. He needs to make his experience at TUCC as not an incubating experience where he lapped up racial resentment, but as a place where he was exposed to racial anger but managed to develop a completely contrary vision of race - even as he still respected the history behind the anger of people like Wright.

Obama has actually done all these things before, in his book and in his interview with the Chicago Tribune. But now he needs to splash this on to the major media. His Philly speech will help. I hope so, at least.

Posted by Elrod | March 17, 2008 5:43 PM

Rihilism- Let me clarify for you:

"You do not wish to be pidgeon-holed, yet you pidgeon-hole Obama"

What I WISH for has little to do with reality. I have been, am, and will be, pigeon-holed by those who insist on doing so. That is their problem, not mine.

However, I CHOOSE to not pigeon-hole myself.

There is a difference. How we see ourselves is more important than how others see us.

Posted by vanessa | March 17, 2008 5:49 PM

"I will NEVER relinquish my triumphalist snark!

I shall snark in France, I shall snark on the seas and oceans, I shall snark with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, I shall snark on this blog, whatever the cost may be, I shall snark on the beaches, I shall snark on the landing grounds, I shall snark in the fields and in the streets, I shall snark in the hills; I shall never surrender my triumphalist snark!"

Oh dear. You, my friend are no Winston Churchill.

Posted by vanessa | March 17, 2008 5:53 PM

Vanessa makes a good point. Why has Obama pigeon-holed himself by letting one sentence from his pastor define all his views on race? You can see Vanessa pleading with him, "Please Barack, don't let one politically dangerous part of a Reverend Wright sermon be the totality of your views on race," and he's all like "No, I fully SUPPORT and ENDORSE these views of Reverend Wright, and THOSE VIEWS ONLY."

Poor Vanessa. She doesn't want to pigeon-hole Obama, he forced her! I can't make a rational argument to say that she makes any sense but as a Clinton supporter this makes me happy so I'll say that it sounds attractive.

Posted by Idiotist | March 17, 2008 6:01 PM

Yes, I do. Unfortunately your screams of cognitive dissonance are louder than your whisper of reason.

Posted by vanessa | March 17, 2008 6:08 PM

Cheer up, Idiotist, no one expects a rational argument from the Clintons *s*. You need not fear a backlash from your demographic.

Posted by morzer | March 17, 2008 6:10 PM

Matt, I think you're not quite right. Your post assumes that people either (A) like Obama's policies or (B) don't like his policies, and that racial slurs will only resonate with those in group B.

What you're forgetting is the enormous portion of the electorate that knows diddly squat about Obama's policies -- and, indeed, will never learn much about them, up to the moment when they vote. Most people -- or at least, a lot of people -- don't vote on policies. They vote on party identification, and what ads they've seen, and what they've heard, and whether they happen to like or dislike the guy (or gal.) These people can obviously be influenced by racial smears quite easily -- and some of them probably will be.

Posted by NoahB | March 17, 2008 6:11 PM

I agree that the electorate will make up its mind on limited info, but I think this may wind up helping Obama in the longterm. It nails the Muslim slur, and will give him a reason, and a platform, to talk about his faith and vision of America.

Posted by maraschion | March 17, 2008 6:17 PM

Please, what lying this is - I am of mixed mixed mixed race, not that it matters, but it matters because I am of mixed mixed mixed race and I say Barack Obama is bad bad bad because Obama is not mixed like me me me, or something.

Please do not pigeon-hole mixed race non-Obama me. Watch me show you all how to be mixed race correctly.

Posted by Jennifer | March 17, 2008 6:29 PM

Is that the same Jennifer which magically appears after many of Chris Ford's comments? Or a different but similarly grammaticized Jennifer?

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 6:33 PM

Jennifer, it is truly moving to see a troll finally face her inner truth. All the fear, confusion and syntactic incompetence come to the fore, in one instant of clarity. Now, please, pick up the crayons, and we'll try drawing strawmen again.

Posted by morzer | March 17, 2008 6:34 PM

How are you Obama supporters enjoying this week?

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 6:48 PM

What kind of bubble was Senator Obama in, that he failed to hear, or hear of, ANY of these remarks? And, if you wish to believe such an incredible statement, should a person so clueless be POTUS?

I see it a little differently, Vanessa, but I end up asking the same question. I don't think he failed to hear Wright's remarks, and that in and of itself doesn't bother me. I'm an old lefty, and I find much of what Wright says to be on target.

But what kind of bubble did Obama have to be in not to have known those remarks would end up biting him on the butt? What kind of bubble was he in that he didn't see this coming? What kind of Superman image must he have of himself to believe he could float serenely above the minefield of race in this country with someone like Wright weighing him down?

How naive does he have to be to think all he has to do is reject Wright's more inflammatory remarks and start talking a little more forcefully about race, and the issue of Wright will just go away? How could he so badly underestimate how the right will use Wright against him to frighten away swing voters and soccer moms and Reagan Democrats?

This is the "piss-poor judgment" I'm worried about. So I also ask, should a person so clueless be POTUS?

Posted by Swift Loris | March 17, 2008 7:16 PM

O poor Vanessa, what I said was so dead on target about your angst until you tried to rebut it with circuitous logic that failed.

Vanessa you are the quintessential confused biracial child and the prototype for all the identity issues those children are challenged with. That's clear.

What is also clear is that you do not look caucasian or you would not be attempting to insist that you are multiracial. Shouting out that you are 50% white, lol.The only biracial kids who do that simply do not want to be pigeonholed as black. I have seen lots of this type denial in my multicultural family. Many of my family members can pass for white and you are likely the brown child like Ginny was on the Jefferson with the brother who could pass for white and she couldn't as they were the offspring of the biracial Willises on that show. Ginny had identity issues on that show for America to see.

Or perhaps you have a sister that can pass and you can't like Quincy Jones daughters he had with Peggy Lipton. Her mother couldn't help her manage her hair or understand how her spirit was not nurtured in those all white affluent schools. Who cares, the facts are you definitely have identity issues and want to fight against how society clearly categorizes you as NON-WHITE. You can't stand that your blackness dominates societies perception of you...poor thing. I am 50% white she tells us all.

All of which matters not except you think that by proclaiming your 'biracialness' you have some right to critique Barack and his choices. You do not. Heck you haven't even reached a point of understanding that you do not get to decide how folks judge you on the basis of race. Barack has. He has frequently said why should he claim being white when he does something good (being 50% white and all, you see) since when the police stop him or it is something bad society does not hestitate to label him as a black man.

Barack ACCEPTS that..you are still fighting it.

Barack gets it. You don't. He knows that he cannot change how society decides his race ethnicity but what he can do is change how folks treat him on the basis of how he responds to them and on the person that he is. In short, he insists on being judged as an individual on the basis of his character independent of what racial box folks want to designate him as. Barack made peace with that long ago. Unlike you who wants to create some unigue identity to express your individuality and thinks you have some special privilege to do so cause you are 50% white. You're in d

McCain and the Pale

Comments (92)