Matthew Yglesias (April 14, 2008) - Integrity? (Politics)

I'm more concerned about Davis fabricating the whole story.

Why would Obama, at this point, be participating in a "highly classified, national security simulation" where he was called upon to make a nuclear decision?

Why would Davis be there observing?

In the unlikely event this did happen, why does Davis feel comfortable publicly characterizing the outcome of the classified exercise?

Does he feel no obligation to keep classified information secure?

Posted by southpaw | April 14, 2008 6:31 PM

Republican from KY, like Jim Bunning. He's not sorry, but so what? His people weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 14, 2008 6:31 PM

I'm guessing, "I'm sorry I let the racism I usually try to keep quiet leak out to public like that," was deemed potentially counterproductive to Rep. Davis's future career prospects.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 6:32 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist."

See, for example, the denunciations of Bill Clinton for being racist for using the term "fairy tale" in reference to Obama. That's obviously a code phrase, because so many characters in fairy tales are African-Americans, like Goldilocks, Snow White, and Rapunzel.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 6:33 PM

Well. What can he say, really? "Sorry for being a racist. I'm a big, dumb racist."?

Posted by JH | April 14, 2008 6:34 PM

Everyone is a racist except me.

Posted by Fake Matthew Yglesias | April 14, 2008 6:35 PM

Either an outlandish racist or a towering moron. Most likely, both.

Posted by Will Allen | April 14, 2008 6:38 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist." - Stever Sailer

Nu? How is this any different than the current situation wherein any criticism of the Bush administration is labeled as "un-supportive of the troops", "un-American" or what have you (and with McCain, whom the media loves, it'd be even worse). The only way we wouldn't have this sort of situation is if HRC is president -- in which case the media would be so against her that she really would have problems doing anything.

That being said, it seems to me that Obama is indeed being criticized using racist dog-whistles, and it's really quite sickening.

Posted by DAS | April 14, 2008 6:39 PM

This "Steve Sailer" fellow has to be joking or a parody, right?

I mean, calling a 40+ year old black man a "boy" is, no two ways about it, clearly racist.

And Matt, to your post, I think JH & DTM have it right: Geoff Davis didn't want to straight up apologize for revealing his racism or tossing a racially-charged insult at Obama, so instead he had to apologize for impugning Obama's "integrity."

Posted by Reader | April 14, 2008 6:41 PM

Thanks Steve. Insightful. Yep, all criticisms of Obama will be labeled as racist. Jeez. And you are supposed to be a conservative opinion-maker?

Posted by otey2 | April 14, 2008 6:44 PM

I think Steve's just mad that this sort of thing is getting all the attention for being racist.

He started up an entire hate site with a community of racists, and he spends his days writing about how the world is full of inferior races prone to violence, and this jackass Davis just says "boy" once and the media can't stop talking about him.

Posted by DivGuy | April 14, 2008 6:50 PM

As if idiot boy's finger should have been on the trigger. OH MY GOD, it still is!! It's itching. I know it is.

Posted by rapier | April 14, 2008 6:56 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: Steve Sailer publicly, painfully losing his mind.

I can't wait.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 14, 2008 6:57 PM

I imagine that Steve Sailer is disappointed that Rep. Davis actually felt compelled to apologize for his apparent racism. After all, the main motivation for the pseudo-intellectual architecture that he and his pals labor to assemble around their bigotry is their hope that open racism will be someday be publicly acceptable.

Keep waiting, Steve.

Posted by N | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM

I grew up in Kentucky. If "boy" is a racist slur towards African American adults there, I never heard it used in that context. It was demeaning and age-ist, but there's no need to fuel the race fire over this. Matt, I really enjoy reading your blog and respect the hell out of you, but I hope you regret this entry.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM

Obama campaign quota: all supporters must play at least three race cards per week. Matthew still has two to go.

(Ooops, is the word "quota" racist?)

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 7:00 PM

I agree that it is hard to infer attitudes from a single remark. They use "boy" a lot in the South, for black men and white men. What reveals racial prejudice is not a single occasion of use, but a pattern of consistently applying "boy" to black men, or doing so with a much higher frequency than one applies it to white men.

The crucial point in Davis's statement is what he is saying about Obama's finger on the button. It's interesting, because of all the many factors behind Obama's appeal for me, probably the most important is the finger-on-the- proverbial-button factor.

I really worry about Clinton, because her record shows a person constantly worried about projecting toughness, who always thinks she has something to prove. This has lead her to err far too much on the side of hawkishness. She also, in my view, tends to make somewhat rash statements immediately following some crisis - like the Bhutto assassination, the Kosovo declaration of independence, etc. - and doesn't give herself enough time to think and regain some balance. And in the end, she's all politics. So I worry that when her finger is on some button or other, she's going too be thinking too little about the security consequences of the alternative courses of action, and too much about how those actions will play politically.

Obama strikes me a sober, judicious, level-headed sort of guy, who knows who he is and isn't out to prove himself to anybody, who is neither too enamored of force or too averse to it, and who thinks carefully about the consequences of actions before taking them.

McCain seems really dangerous - an erratic and temperamental ideologue, with some serious gaps in his knowledge, and a tendency to act on the basis of spite.

Posted by Dan kervick | April 14, 2008 7:04 PM

I'm not a Southerner myself and never even heard of that Davis guy from Kentucky, but I'm wondering whether Obama and Matt aren't reading something non-existent into his words.

Based on TV shows, movies, and such, I have the impression that lots of Southerners often refer to adults---including whites---as "boy" when they're speaking casually, much just people in other parts of the country might use the word "guy".

If this really is the case---and there must be some commenters here from the South---then Obama's "anti-racism" hair-trigger might really end up annoying quite a lot of ordinary Southerners who don't think Davis intended any slur.

Posted by RKU | April 14, 2008 7:05 PM

If "boy" is a racist slur towards African American adults there, I never heard it used in that context.

I miss the days when morons couldn't find the Internet.

Posted by Gabriel | April 14, 2008 7:07 PM

I think the apology fits. I've known folks from the south who use 'boy' like I might use 'guy'. Only the speaker knows for sure, but its legit to think he realized he accidently stepped into a minefield rather than to take his comment as racist.

Posted by Chris | April 14, 2008 7:13 PM

To add to my "I grew up in KY" comment, I should have mentioned that it just sounded like normal dialog, not racist dialog. I can just as soon hear a Kentuckian referring to someone as "boy" and meaning it in an endearing way, as opposed to a slur. I don't think it was meant to be endearing in this context, but I just don't think it was necessarily racist.

I hate to break this news, but not all Southerners are racist. Sometimes Southern colloquialisms sound like the speech of a simpleton. But if one has read Faulkner novels, perhaps it has become evident at some point that incredibly intelligent, compassionate people can lie beneath simpleton exteriors.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 7:19 PM

Again, the racially charged language aside, this republican rep either publicly disclosed classified information or he's just making it up. I think that's ultimately going to be the more powerful rejoinder to his attack.

Republicans claim to care deeply about national security, but they consistently undermine it to score political points.

Posted by southpaw | April 14, 2008 7:20 PM

We do have a snitty Al-bot on the day shift today, don't we?

As Ambinder noted, Davis was born three years before Obama. But who can know what the Montreal-born, Pittsburgh-bred adopted Kentuckian meant by calling an African-American man of about his age 'boy' as part of a yuk-yuk set of speeches to an audience of Kentucky GOPpers?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 14, 2008 7:22 PM

Born and raised in the Deep South. The usage was racist, and I doubt Mr. Davis would have said it if his mouth hadn't been ahead of his brain. The apology seems more sincere to me than to Matt.

Posted by milo | April 14, 2008 7:26 PM

Gabriel, do you suppose you know more about the dialect of where I grew up than I do?

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 7:26 PM

I remember when I was growing up watching The Dukes of Hazzard, and the theme song came on: "Just Good Ol' Boys..." And I remember thinking "that theme song's racist" - it called Bo and Luke "boys" even though they were grown men! Plus, there was a confederate flag on the car! Racist, racist racist!

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 7:29 PM

Some of you commenters are out of your minds. Using the word "boy" for a black man is well-known as a racist insult, especially in the South; if you don't know the history behind the slur then I truly, honestly, pity you. Some of the "race cards" in this campaign haven't been real but there's just absolutely NO debate about this one.

Posted by C.Michol | April 14, 2008 7:39 PM

I honestly did not know that "boy" is a racist insult. Can someone point me to a reliable source on the Internet where I can learn more about this?

Posted by Susy | April 14, 2008 7:42 PM

when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" [sic]--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. Dr. King, letter from Birmingham jail.

Any educated adult in America, with an infinitesimal knowledge of this nations history, who thinks that a white male in his fourties referring to an African American male also in his fourties as "boy" in public is not being somewhat racist is either racist themselves or flat out in denial.

Can anyone who is defending this man and his statement please give me another example where a white public servant has referred to his fellow white public servant in any way shape or form as "boy".

I am no saint but I know racism/racist comments when I see them. You don't have to be very smart or live in the south to know. I have never being to the south.

Posted by owl | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

There's no way of looking into Davis' head to know what he was thinking, but writing this off as innocuous seems highly dubious. Are people seriously unaware of the traditional use of "boy" as a racially demeaning term? We're talking pretty elementary cultural literacy here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movie_Quotes

#16, between "E.T. phone home," and "Rosebud."

Posted by N | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

Gabriel, do you suppose you know more about the dialect of where I grew up than I do?

Ordinarily I wouldn't think so, and yet I apparently do. It's a strange world.

Posted by Gabriel | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

You know, if there are really this many people who don't know calling a black man "boy" is a well-established racist insult, I guess it's a sign of progress. If you didn't grow up around racist assholes, then maybe you never heard the term used that way. Of course, I didn't grow up around racist assholes, and yet somehow I know it's racist to call a grown black man "boy," but maybe I had a really good education or something.

Posted by too many steves | April 14, 2008 7:47 PM

On the post, it seems like Matt's being quite bitchy for continuing to demand more after the guy did the right thing by quickly and without any defensiveness or pretenses issuing a strong apology. To demand "No, I want to hear exactly what you did, it has to come from your lips, say it!" is a bit over the top, and frankly that attitude will only encourage people in the future to react defensively and refuse to apologize.

On the comment itself? It is an interesting story in the south about how the college football coaches had to adjust to integrating the teams. One of the things they talk about is dropping the use of the word "boy". They had something of a father-son type relationship with their players, and they were accustomed to using it all of the time, "atta boy!", "you boys did well", "the boys played hard today", etc. The black players, though, were fantastically offended by being called a boy, so the coaches had to change their vocabulary.

I recount that story because I think you see it a lot, particularly if someone does not hang out with minorities much. When you're in a diverse setting, you speak differently than when you're in a homogenous group - simple phrases like "what's wrong with you people", "that boy was tough, let me tell ya" or, to a woman, "get me some coffee, will ya" take on new meaning. If you hang out in diverse settings a lot, then you get used to it and adjust without even thinking about it. If you don't? Well, you can make a mistake and really offend someone you didn't intend to.

Is that the case here? Who knows. He could be a racist, or more likely, he could have been just taking a pot-shot at someone he did not like. Still, there is no reason to suspect maliciousness, and when someone apologizes for something real quick, to respond, "that's not good enough; I want to hear you tell me exactly what you did" is pretty disrespectful.

Father - son

Posted by Vermando | April 14, 2008 7:51 PM

Calling this statement racist is arrogant. Bar none. It assumes you have knowledge that you don't. Guaranteeing that it wasn't racist would be equally dumb, but what gives people the gall to act like authority figures on the intent of another man's comment when he was using a common colloquial term that refers to men of all colors and ages?

Seriously, please tone down the arrogance, boys.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 7:59 PM

It's a Southern thing. Though an elected official should be more careful than most about referencing a black and only a black in the "boy context" when telling a story. That is a region where it is not "Our Troops in Iraq" but "Our Boys in Iraq" which is quite permissible. Even if some Jewish media pundit or Lefty who wouldn't be caught dead in uniform musters up some faux outrage about Southerners calling the majority Southern black, hispanic, white men in uniform aged 18-50 as "boys".

And Southern black men are even bigger fans of regularly including "boy" in their language for people of all races than Southern Whites.

But the story is more interesting than just the "boy" quote, and explains why the Congressman may have slipped.

Out of exasperation.

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.
"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

That is troubling. Obama famously failed open on the matter of nuclear attack in an early debate.

He was given a scenario where ships bearing nuclear bombs unexpectedly blew up two major cities. Obama's response was that as President, he would focus on the 1st Responders, ensuring they had the respurces and tools to cope with "people in need". The others wisely said they were Commander in Chief, their 1st responsibility was to defend the nation and strike back at the enemy responsible for killing millions of Americans before other American cities were eradiacted. (All while Obama would be fretting about if there would be enough ice and disposable diapers to go around - as firestorms raged, radioactivity spread, and people wondered what city would be nuked next)

These national security exercises include key decision-makers and people considered plausible future decision-makers. Both military, and potential future civilian leaders of the military. With Obama, the odds on favorite to be the next President, an obvious selection.

The exercises are also useful to the experienced, vetted key national security people in evaluating and grading performance - then passing it on to military and Party leadership which people did well, which aspiring Admiral or politician messed up badly and got people killed in the scenario. By making bad decisions or failing to be decisive when the situation demanded decisiveness.

Kerwick raises the same point, though he speculates and spins his conclusion that surely Obama must be the wisest...But, like him, I'd like the voters to get an inkling on who has done well or badly in them. We know that in real-life evals, Governors Schwarzenegger, Barbour, and Jeb Bush were rated by Fed officials as performing "superbly" in disasters, while Kathleen Blanco failed open.
We heard Hill buzz that Biden "amazing how sharp that guy is when he stops talking about himself!", and that Mitt Romney, handled a simulated major overseas disaster involving terrorism affecting US interests and citizens "as good as evaluators thought possible",

If Davis is to be believed, Obama performed badly in a high stakes nuclear simulation be failing to make appropriate or needed decisions. If true, Davis wasn't the only one in the room of key people, not even the only Southerner or non-Southerner to be mentally thinking "That boy is in over his head" as Obama froze, made bad calls, failed open..

I'm sure McCain people were there, and Hillary people - watching whatever Obama did or didn't do in the simulated nuclear scenario, that got Davis so upset.

My guess is Obama did not do as well as the others, or Davis would have chosen not to tell it...But if Obama, by background, lack of skill, or temperment, cannot handle a fast-moving military or terrorist crisis - that is a significant black mark on his ability to be President.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 14, 2008 8:01 PM

"When your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" [sic]--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait." Dr. King, letter from Birmingham jail.

Any educated adult in America, with an infinitesimal knowledge of this nations history, who thinks that a white male in his fourties referring to an African American male also in his fourties as "boy" in public is not being somewhat racist is either racist themselves or flat out in denial or just not educated.

Can anyone who is defending this man and his statement please give me another example where a white public servant has referred to his fellow white public servant in any way, shape or form as "boy".

I am no saint but I know racism/racist comments when I see them. You don't have to be very smart or live in the south to know. I have never being to the south and I am just 22 years old with a college degree.

Posted by owl | April 14, 2008 8:05 PM

he's a republican.
what would one expect from a republican.
par for the course.

Posted by frankie d | April 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Reading some of the comments from Steve Sailer, otey2, slothrop and others I'm getting the impression that a white man from the south calling a black man boy is nothing but good old southern fun. I mean just think if Sen. Obama and Rep. Davis were any closer he could call him "his house nigger" and it be just fine.

Damm, you people have tried your hardest in every way for centuries to belittle and besmirch the accomplishments of African Americans and now that African Americans fell empowered enough to complain when they feel they are being disrespected, its there fault for being overly sensitive.

Rep. Davis was wrong to call a 40+ year old man, who happens to be 1 of 100 senators and who also happens to be leading the race for the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States a boy. It is insulting and degrading and his apology was a crock of you-know-what. Would any of you have suggested that it would be OK to call John McCain or John Warner or Jim Webb a boy, so why the hell is it a "southern cultural thing" to call Sen. Obama a boy.

ESPN's Ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber has a new article up where she discusses racial matters and sports, I think more than a few of her comments are also applicable here.

I've highlighted these four because they seem so relevant to the crap thats been said here.

I didn't know whether to feel encouraged that younger fans thought race was a nonfactor, or discouraged that history I still think of as recent and relevant seemed so ancient to them.

"We know so little about one another. Even scarier, we know even less about the fallout of our racist history."

"The way people react to racial topics should be the clue that they do want to talk about them at some level. We are ready to be past it, but before we can be past it, there is still a lot for us to talk about."

ESPN will keep encountering a phenomenon that has been dubbed "white fatigue" -- an impatience that wishfully equates issue-exhaustion with issue-resolution.

.
my emphasis

Posted by Loviatar | April 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Hey, we know Al and RKU are Clinton supporters, but does that mean they can't call things how they see them? You admitting that what this Rep. said is racist doesn't mean you're supporting Obama. Really guys, its okay.
Now, regardless of where you're from, if you are American and over the age of 20, you certainly know that calling a grown black man "boy" is racist. All of you idiots are surely kidding yourselves.

Posted by Ted2 | April 14, 2008 8:13 PM

Matt, you need to set aside your hip post-modern detached irony and feel some righteous outrage. What he said is unadulterated racism and he needs to be called, plainly and without hedging, the racist that he is. Unless the left and Democrats are willing to stop being so cool that they can't feel, and express, passion this stuff will just get worse and worse. This post was decidedly devoid of that and it isn't helpful.

Posted by dmh | April 14, 2008 8:14 PM

Loviatar,
I have found the ESPN Obudsman to be excellent. I don't know much about her, but her eloquence is refreshing. That last line about "white fatigue" is so perfect, yet so simple.

Also, anyone who thinks this "boy" comment is just your run-of-the-mill southern lingo is absolutely kidding themselves. Could you imagine this Rep. Davis referring to John Edwards as "boy" in that circumstance? If you say you can, then you are a liar.

Posted by Stacy | April 14, 2008 8:19 PM

I know I always call all my white homeboys nigga. Trying to racialize the word is just the height of latte-sipping limousine-driving Bible-hating liberalism.

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 8:20 PM

"That is a region where it is not "Our Troops in Iraq" but "Our Boys in Iraq" which is quite permissible."

Could it be because the military is viewed as a group of young men aged 18-24? Second, when you call somebody your same age "boy" you mean to denigrate them. It just happens that it's one of the ways people used to put black men lower on the totem pole then themselves. So when a white senator in his 40's calls a black senator in his 40's "boy" it's fairly racist.

IMO slips of the tongue like this gives you an insight in how the person talks and acts around their friends. He wouldn't have used the term boy if he didn't use it in private.

Posted by JordanT | April 14, 2008 8:28 PM

But if Obama, by background, lack of skill, or temperment, cannot handle a fast-moving military or terrorist crisis - that is a significant black mark on his ability to be President.

Let me add experience. I don't doubt Obama is smart, but he has gone through life with no military or executive experience. The people he sits as "just about as experienced as him" - Lincoln and JFK, had military leadership and at least a decade and a half experience as a nationally elected leader or top executive experience (Lincoln as top exec negotiator between the railroads, farmers, mechants, banks, and state legislators.)

In fact, if Davis's story is true, Obama's lack of experience as an executive decision-maker is the most plausible reason for his falure in the two nuclear scenarios he apparantly did poorly in.

In military parlance, 2nd Lieutenant Syndrome. Seen in cocksure Golden Boys, and Golden Girls of high success in previous life that show up knowing they can handle anything as a junior officer. Who are then routinely and swiftly tested by commanders to "break them in" and show them the error of their inflated beliefs about matters of leadership and management and multi-tasking in stress and under deadlines that only come with more experience. A needed humbling so they ditch their arrogance and cocksureness so they are less likely to kill themselves or their soldiers..

Business is like that, too. As young engineers and lawyers arriving at the 1st level of management are convinced they are CEO material and disabused of that by their seniors.

Only in politics and in family owned businesses , where these restraints to get maturation and judgment are absent - can an Obama, a boy mayor of Cleveland, a 24 year old inheriting his Dad's African dictatorship, or a preening 44-year old narcissist get the reins of his dead parents law firm...

Obama may not be ready to be the Top Executive Leader of America. JFK had 4 years of war as a commanding officer, 14 years in national office, and people still thought of him "he could have used another 4 years" once he got in office.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 14, 2008 8:30 PM

Note how clever Chris Ford is. He refers to Kucinich as a "boy"! Thereby making it a nonracist term, since Kucinich is white!

Damn, you're so subtle, clever, and smart.

Posted by Zephyrus | April 14, 2008 8:37 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, and the guy's a jerk, but I don't think his racism can be assumed. "Boy" is a derogatory term that white people use on white people on a regular basis. I've been known to use it myself. The fact that racists once called black people "boy" doesn't make all usages of the term racist. It's just an innaccurate pejorative.

Obama is a "boy" by the standards of anyone older than he is. Like I said, in an inaccurate and pejorative sense, but not neccesarily a racist one.

Posted by glasnost | April 14, 2008 8:41 PM

Hillary's attacks on Obama's "elitism" are racist as well. They are a variation on the "uppity black person" meme.

And much of this would not be going on if divisive Hillary would not be in this race.

If Obama were going up against any other Democrat, the race would be more civil and the race card would not have been played like it has by the Clintons.

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 8:43 PM

Would any of you have suggested that it would be OK to call John McCain or John Warner or Jim Webb a boy, so why the hell is it a "southern cultural thing" to call Sen. Obama a boy.

Yes it would be totally okay and normal and wouldn't surprise me one bit. That is the entire point I am trying to make.

For the record, I am an ardent Obama supporter and your statement that I am trying to "belittle and besmirch the accomplishments of African Americans" is incredibly misguided. I have lived in the South my entire life and most of my friends are equally as excited as I am about the Obama campaign, to a fault if anything.

Rep. Davis' comment was idiotic in my opinion. I don't agree with it one bit. It is possible that there were racist undertones. But to assume that it was racist without a doubt is completely asinine. And Obama would probably not agree with you playing the race card, at least that has been the tone of the campaign he has been running.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 8:43 PM

"Even if some Jewish media pundit or Lefty who wouldn't be caught dead in uniform..." (farting noises continue for several paragraphs)

Like all great writers, our Chris Ford has a recognizable and distinctive style. Props, nigga. (The word nigga is by no means racial and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous PC claptrap enforced by the hook-nosed, gold coin rubbing Jewish, Jewy, Jewiest MSM and Leftists who have never enjoyed masturbating to Guns and Ammo)

Posted by Waingro | April 14, 2008 8:45 PM

damn, the fact that people can actually defend Davis' comment.....the only question here is, given the problem with determining good faith on the internet, should the rest of us be sickened by their dishonesty or appalled by their ignorance?

Posted by nick l | April 14, 2008 8:50 PM

nick,
i'm not defending his comment. just saying that the race card is perhaps out of line.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 8:53 PM

Calling grown men "boys" is definitely common usage, not just in the south, but where I grew up (Queens). I call 40 and 50 year old friends of mine "boy" all the time.

But. I wouldn't call a black guy boy. Because of the nasty history. My grandfather would call blacks or jews "boy" but not xian whites, and I don't want to be like him. Like, I would call a white kid climbing a tree a monkey, but not a black kid. Maybe if three friends of mine were sitting around and two were white and one was black I might call them "you boys." But if the two whites left I would cut it out. But maybe one day I might forget, and accidentally call a black dude the same thing I would have called a white dude.

I don't know dude Davis well enough to say. Could be a throw back to old fashioned racist lingo he grew up with. Could be he was calling O the same he would call a white guy, and forgot the racial implication. Could be he was doing it on purpose. I don't know. I think all you persons saying how obvious it is aren't thinking too hard.

Posted by John | April 14, 2008 8:56 PM

One can't help but wonder how much The Wingnut Welfare Fairies are paying "Al" (et al?). It's gotta be a shitload of cash given his comments.

Posted by ed | April 14, 2008 9:04 PM

Kudos for your post, John. It's nice to see some objectivity.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 9:04 PM

"When your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" [sic]--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait." Dr. King, letter from Birmingham jail.

Any educated adult in America, with an infinitesimal knowledge of this nations history, who thinks that a white male in his fourties referring to an African American male also in his fourties as "boy" in public, is not being somewhat racist is either racist themselves or flat out in denial.

I don't know who this guy is personally, I just know that what he is racist. Whether its intentional, I don't know.

However, can anyone who is defending this man and his statement please give me another example where a white public servant has referred to his fellow white public servant in any way, shape or form as "boy".

I am no saint but I know racism/racist comments when I see them. You don't have to be very smart or live in the south to know. I have never being to the south. BTW I am 22yrs old...with a college degree, if that matters.

Posted by Owl | April 14, 2008 9:09 PM

The redneck-whitebread-chickenshit-step on his dick- geek-motherfucker Kentucky Congressman just couldn't be racist. Heavens, no.

Posted by Trevor | April 14, 2008 9:14 PM

I will give him credit for a pretty decent apology here. Because, while the "boy" was offensive for the clear racist history, "that boy's finger does not need to be on the button" was clearly a bigger issue for the Obama campaign's overall message. An apology that said "It's wrong to call a man my own age "boy," but my point about him being incompetent to lead the nation stands" would just drag this on farther and farther. By framing the apology in terms of the national security issue, rather than the race issue, he did the Obama camp a favor.

I'm not saying this was Davis's intention. But in terms of overall usefulness for Obama's broader message, the following is a stronger apology than merely saying "oops, freudian slip."
Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation. My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.

Posted by Deborah | April 14, 2008 9:16 PM

It's not really a button anyway; it's more like a trigger, and at that level, it's actually just a bunch of index cards.

Posted by I was never here | April 14, 2008 9:35 PM

Oops, sorry for the repeated comments.

My lap top had connection problems so I wasn't able to see new comments including mine and tried several times as a result. Only to refresh the screen once and see that they were indeed posted.

Sorry...

Posted by Owl | April 14, 2008 9:37 PM

Slotrop/glasnost,

I'm responding to to both of you because you seem truly confused as to why some of us might be a tad upset when a white 49 year old Representative from Kentucky who happens to a member of a party that has repeatedly used something they call the Southern Strategy to garner votes and win elections would call a 46 year old black US Senator boy.

Your attempts to rationalize Rep. Davis comments do you no good, they make you look out-of-touch and more than a little bigoted. Rep. Davis comments cannot be viewed as anything but racist when they are placed in the context of his region's and his party's historical treatment of African Americans in this country. Your attempt to take it out of context and couch it as if its a "southern culture thing" to belittle one peers is one of the more frustrating ruses played by bigots and racist (we see enough of that in regards to the confederate flag). It has never been a friendly comment to denigrate a grown man as a boy, particularly when that man is your age peer and higher than you on the power structure.

Unlike Al and his ilk, I believe both of you really think you are being open minded, but you're not. What you're doing is helping to give cover to the bigots and racist who really believe that Sen. Obama is nothing more than an "uppity nigger", so I am going to suggest that you please reconsider your comments and place Rep. Davis' statement in the context of which it was said and the party of which he is a member.

Posted by Loviatar | April 14, 2008 9:51 PM

When is Yglesias going to apologize for having a Harvard degree and a gig at the Atlantic while writing "fourties"?

Posted by Jen | April 14, 2008 9:54 PM

To me, as a black man who grew up in the south, I look at this comment in one of two ways:

1) "Boy" = brash, impudent youngster who doesn't know what he's doing
2) "Boy" = shorthand for ni#%er

Either explanation is bad, but the second is worse. Calling a grown adult man (who actually holds an office senior to your own and is only three years your junior in age) a "boy" isn't what I would call a smart move and, speaking only for myself, I find it hard to believe that a white person who grew up in the south would be unaware of connotation number two. You might have an instance of an old black man might calling a young black man "boy" but that's almost certainly going to fall under choice 1. In most situations where I've heard "boy" tossed around, it's generally been closer in meaning to choice 2.

Now, Davis might not be a racist, but either way he said something that was condescending at best and racist as worst.

Posted by Mike P | April 14, 2008 9:59 PM

Maybe Matt's a Canadian at heart.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 14, 2008 9:59 PM

The people here defending Davis are seriously missing the point. It takes all of about 3 seconds to find out that people are pissed off about this because they consider referring to a 40 year old black senator as 'boy' to be racist. If Davis wants to sincerely apologize for his choice of words he has to publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of this complaint and apologize for invoking the racist history behind the term for many Americans. He can maintain that he didn't mean in that way, but he has to at least acknowledge the legitimacy of the complaint- and I don't see that in his response.

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 10:03 PM

The people here defending Davis are seriously missing the point. It takes all of about 3 seconds to find out that people are pissed off about this because they consider referring to a 40 year old black senator as 'boy' to be racist. If Davis wants to sincerely apologize for his choice of words he has to publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of this complaint and apologize for invoking the racist history behind the term for many Americans. He can maintain that he didn't mean in that way, but he has to at least acknowledge the legitimacy of the complaint- and I don't see that in his response.

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 10:03 PM

I grew up in the South and "boy" is not necessarily used as a racial slur. Ex: "He's a Good Ole Boy" used as a term of approval or affection.

Given past history, it is careless and insensitive for a white man to use it to refer to an Afro-American male. On the other hand, if Davis did look on Obama as a peer, he may have used it without thinking, in the same way he would have used it in speaking of a white man.

This code word bullshit and political correctness -- this attitude that people in Washington and New York DICTATE the mores and manners of society -- really pisses off the rest of the country. Matthew shouldn't make pronouncements on the intricate practices of Southern racism unless he has lived in the South for a while.

Maybe Davis is really a racist -- if so, that attitude will readily reveal itself if given a little time and a little rope. When it does, then attack him with cause and with evidence. The racists I've seen don't apologize, as Davis has done.

This uproar -- with little to support it -- will piss off people who have no liking for racists but who also don't like the liberal version of race-baiting. It smells too strongly of Chinese self-criticism sessions under Chairman Mao. It encourages people to vote against Obama just to show they ain't going to take shit from Northeast liberals with prejudices against the South.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 10:04 PM

Johns comment wins the thread.

Posted by scottynx | April 14, 2008 10:04 PM

Just because you call white men "boy" doesn't mean it isn't racist to call a black man that.

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 14, 2008 10:05 PM

Funny, Slothrop, I was raised in rural Kentucky myself (I live in Louisville now), and it was pretty clear to me back then exactly what calling a grown black man "boy" was supposed to mean.

And it isn't just Kentucky, of course; it's not as if Americans are the only ones who figured out that one way of keeping perceived inferiors in their place is by infantilizing them. For instance, the apartheid-era South Africans mandating that grown black men wear shorts, like schoolchildren.

Posted by Brian | April 14, 2008 10:11 PM

Re Loviatar's comment "Rep. Davis comments cannot be viewed as anything but racist when they are placed in the context of his region's and his party's historical treatment of African Americans in this country. "
---------------
Go fuck yourself.

My family has been in EASTERN KENTUCKY on the Virginia border for 200 years. If you actually KNEW anything about the region, you would know that Kentucky was a UNION state.

Some of my ancestors fought in the UNION Army in the Civil War -- the nephew of my great, great , great grandfather, Achilles Williams, was blinded in the raid on Saltville , VA by a powder explosion.

A fair number of men from Kentucky gave their lives to free the Afro-American slaves.

Your blanket smear of their descendents as racists is ignorant.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 10:16 PM

Davis said that he regretted that his words may have impugned Obama's integrity. So, if you think Davis meant no harm by calling Obama a "boy" , then what was Davis specifically regretting about what he said?

Posted by afferent input | April 14, 2008 10:18 PM

Could you imagine this Rep. Davis referring to John Edwards as "boy" in that circumstance? If you say you can, then you are a liar.
Posted by Stacy

The silly twat forgets Southerners nicknamed Edwards "Breck Boy" as a riff on the "Breck Girl" hair models.

Better than locals in NC who called him "pretty boy, faggot boy".

**********************
Could it be because the military is viewed as a group of young men aged 18-24? Second, when you call somebody your same age "boy" you mean to denigrate them.

Hardly. It is inclusive in the South up to 50 year old grandma reservists. Just as "Good 'ol Boys" refers to various movers and shakers of middle to old age as well as subset definitions of college partiers, etc.
"Boy" can mean comrade, "boy" can be used in an acknowledged inferior-superior relationship, or as a "diss" in argument where you are presuming the person is less experienced, less qualified - basically a rookie.. Or a harder diss that the person hasn't grown up and maybe is incapable of acting as an adult.
Blacks use it more than whites.
Then again, "nigger" is a normal part of conversation in many black social groups.

******************
Of course, this could also be a very sly Republican trick, knowing Northern Jewish media will have a fit over a case of "boy" in Flyover Country - to use them to publicize that Obama did badly again when confronted with making a decision regarding a national security crisis involving nukes..

Posted by Chris Ford | April 14, 2008 10:23 PM

Since even Kevin Drum recognizes that small town people clearly haven't for 200 years been clinging to guns and god out of bitterness, where do I go on the internet to see an apology from Obama on that?

Or is not just representatives from Kentucky or Senators from New York who have problems admitting when they are wrong?

Posted by Chad | April 14, 2008 10:26 PM

Of course this was a racist comment, and Davis knew that.

It seems that all anyone has to offer as criticism on Obama, whether that be Hillary or Davis, is either racist or trivial.

But they misjudge the situation. This is a big issue and change election. This isn't 2000 when people thought everything was going so great, nor is it 2004 when people still thought Bush was pretty good and the war wasn't a disaster.

This is 2008 which is more like 1992: people are fed up with things and want change. And when they do these stupid and trivial attacks do not register with most voters. When you are hurting you don't care who reaches out to throw you a lifeline...whether that person be black, or be described by small minds as "elitist."

You know who is on your side and who is not, and clearly Obama is on our side. Clearly, Hillary doesn't care about anyone except herself, and clearly, McCain is determined to vindicate Bush's legacy and do more of the same.

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 10:29 PM

A fair number of men from Kentucky gave their lives to free the Afro-American slaves.

Don Williams,

I think your anger is a little misplaced, why don't you look internally at yourself for your support of a party which has for the past 40+ years used race as a means to divide this country. Don't preach to me about something your ancestors did, what have you and your party done for the past three generation; you and your party are the ones who are dishonoring the men of the Union who fought and died to keep this country whole.

So kiss my ass with your self-righteous claims about your ancestors, I wish you were 1/4 of the man that they were, at least they were willing to fight and die for their country instead of trying to rip it apart.

Posted by Loviatar | April 14, 2008 10:35 PM

Great post, Mike P. Everyone else please consider the source and notice he has taken the high road on playing the race card here. At the same time, he is not naive to the fact that it may have indeed been racist, which nobody should be.

This is great stuff here, Don W:
This uproar -- with little to support it -- will piss off people who have no liking for racists but who also don't like the liberal version of race-baiting. It smells too strongly of Chinese self-criticism sessions under Chairman Mao. It encourages people to vote against Obama just to show they ain't going to take shit from Northeast liberals with prejudices against the South.

I would never be driven so far as to retract my vote for Obama over these matters, but I do get frustrated at people who generalize people of a certain region and accuse them of all being neocon bigots who generalize others. It just reeks of hypocrisy. Thank you for saying it better than I could have. As an engineer, I don't necessarily have the greatest way with words.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 10:36 PM

Steve Sailer, David Duke's towel boy, writes: "This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist.""

To stone-cold racists like Steve Sailer the Geoff Davises of the world should be given Presidential Medals Of Freedom whenever they open their dumbass mouths and utter their ignorant bullshit.

It's not that Steve Sailer thinks racism doesn't exist - he thinks it's scientifically justified and morally correct. If a President Obama were being sent watermelons each day by the RNC and someone pointed out that this was a racist act, Steve Sailer would disagree - and he'd start sending daily copies of "Birth Of A Nation" to the White House.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 14, 2008 10:41 PM

"I grew up in Kentucky. If "boy" is a racist slur towards African American adults there, I never heard it used in that context. It was demeaning and age-ist, but there's no need to fuel the race fire over this. Matt, I really enjoy reading your blog and respect the hell out of you, but I hope you regret this entry.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM"

My black friends from the South tend to feel a bit differently about this. Just sayin'. I find a lot of Southern white people who don't think of themselves as racist and find this type of stuff normal (like Fuzzy Zoeller's or whatever his name is comment about Tiger Woods eating fried chicken) and then are all confused when black people consider it racist.

Posted by Reality Man | April 14, 2008 10:41 PM

Well, if the attitude of all the Obama-fanatics on this comment thread is remotely representative of what would be in an Obama general election campaign, that's REALLY bad news for poor Barack!

You have all these very strong pro-Obama Southerners like Don Williams and Slothrop being viciously insulted for being insufficiently "anti-racist", or perhaps having had great-grandfathers who might be suspected of having been insufficiently anti-racist.

Don Williams' point is exactly the one I was suggesting. If all the Obama supporters spend six months of a general election campaign shrieking "racism" at all white Southerners--plus working-class white northerners, Latinos, Asians, and everyone else in the 90% non-black electorate---that's not a smart political strategy.

Lots of voters will just think "If Obama gets elected, I'll probably get insulted like this for the next four years straight---no way!"

Basically, a 3% extra swing to McCain by the 90% non-black November electorate would probably sink Obama. And I'll bet the "annoyance" factor might be a lot bigger than 3%!

Here's a bit of friendly advice. It's not that easy to win people's votes by just insulting them all the time. Which is why professional politicians are mostly such a worthless bunch of toadying squishes.

Posted by RKU | April 14, 2008 10:49 PM

Re Loviatar's comment "I think your anger is a little misplaced, why don't you look internally at yourself for your support of a party which has for the past 40+ years used race as a means to divide this country. Don't preach to me about something your ancestors did, what have you and your party done for the past three generation; you and your party are the ones who are dishonoring the men of the Union who fought and died to keep this country whole."
-----------------

1) I'm not sure what Loviatar means.

I am not only a registered Democrat, I have worked for months as a volunteer for Democratic candidates in the past three Congressional campaigns and in Howard Dean's campaign.

Anyone who has read my posts here over the past year would know that.

2) So when Loviatar says "why don't you look internally at yourself for your support of a party which has for the past 40+ years used race as a means to divide this country." is he referring to the DEMOCRATS??

3) Similarly, when Loviatar says "you and your party are the ones who are dishonoring the men of the Union who fought and died to keep this country whole." is he strongly criticizing me for not being a REPUBLICAN??? Because the Union Army which fought to free the slaves was led by the Republicans??

4) After all, Abraham Lincoln was born and reared in Kentucky. Was he one of the racists too?

5) Or does Loviatar simply have his head buried up his ass and is posting about things, people, and a region of which he knows nothing?

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 10:52 PM

So the "correct" answer on the highly classified security simulation was to invade Iraq?

And Obama didn't do that?

Posted by putnam | April 14, 2008 10:56 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist."

We are all Steve Sailer now!

Perish the thought.

Steve, you don't need Obama to become president to be labeled "racist," or racist.

So you really don't need to worry about it that much.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 14, 2008 11:04 PM

It has never been a friendly comment to denigrate a grown man as a boy, particularly when that man is your age peer and higher than you on the power structure.

Loviatar, you may have a reading comprehension problem. I'll quote myself:

It's just an innaccurate pejorative.

So I understand it as an unfriendly statement. I just think the racism thing is overblown.

Are black people racist when they call me "white boy"? Are they racist when they call me "boy"? I wouldn't interpret it that way.

Racism should be reserved for terms that specifically relate someone's race to some pejorative quality or some implication of inferioit. "Boy" does not specifically refer to black people, so it shouldn't be considered a racist commnent.

This sort of death-by-most-hostile-interpretation-of-a-soundbite -possible is exactly what I've been critcizing people for doing to Obama in Bittergate.

I think it's okay to point out that his terminology is racially insensitive. That's a lot clearer than "racist" and fundamentally a more accurate description of the type of problem being discussed.

Posted by glasnost | April 14, 2008 11:08 PM

I know I always call all my white homeboys nigga. Trying to racialize the word is just the height of latte-sipping limousine-driving Bible-hating liberalism.

This isn't even close to a good parody. I mean, "my white homeboys"? Please.

In rethinking, I suppose I can see where some people might consider "boy" as bigoted. But clearly it is no more racist than calling Obama "articulate" (remember when Team Obama played that race card?). And Matthew thinks that there is there's a lot to be said on behalf of the Democratic Party nominating the racist who called Obama "articulate" for Vice President.

So, really, how bad could it be?

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 11:09 PM

Where's the outrage? Hillary Clinton has legitimized racism in this campaign. She has also gotten America used to it.

Notice how Obama seeks to elevate our discussion; Hillary lowers it.

Without Hillary in this race, this remark gets the Trent Lott treatment. Now, it's just another racist attack; Hillary probably cheered.

I wonder if Hillary and her cronies use the "N" word about Obama in private?

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 11:11 PM

all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist."

Well, heck, as the Biden example shows, you don't even need to criticize Obama for Team Obama to call you a racist - even compliments of Obama will do!

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 11:12 PM

Chris Ford touches on a criticism of Obama that's the one of the only really intelligent criticisms I've heard; namely, that Obama is a man who has never really failed and this really might not be a good thing to have in a national leader.

I'm for him anyway though.

Posted by mike | April 14, 2008 11:15 PM

If all the Obama supporters spend six months of a general election campaign shrieking "racism" at all white Southerners--plus working-class white northerners, Latinos, Asians, and everyone else in the 90% non-black electorate---that's not a smart political strategy.

There are three issues with Davis's comment:

(1) The specific language employed can plausibly (even persuasively) be read as racially charged.

(2) Taken on its own terms, it displays a remarkably cavalier attitude about discussing classified national security matters for partisan gain.

(3) It smells like a fish.

Since I haven't been able to interest anybody in (2) or (3), I'll just go ahead and engage.

Every American this side of Foghorn Leghorn can recognize that using the phrase "that boy" in reference to a grown black man has racial overtones ("boy" being an erstwhile appellation for male slaves). This interpretation is particularly relevant when the speaker is demeaning the black man in question.

So I think it's a stretch to characterize the Obama-supporting side of this debate as "shrieking racism at all white Southerners." I think it's more a case of reading the comments of one Republican representative, and defending an obvious interpretation of those comments from a barrage of nonsense.

Posted by southpaw | April 14, 2008 11:15 PM

From Covington, KY, in the heart of Davis' district. There is no confusion as to what this meant, it is absolutely a racist slur. Here's audio:

http://polwatchers.typepad.com/pol_watchers/files/geoff_davis_on_obama.mp3

Posted by Dave Meyer | April 14, 2008 11:16 PM

Don Williams,

Really, you need to cool down. Take a time out. Smoke some of the pot they grow in Eastern Kentucky. Whatever it takes, just chill.

You told him/her to "go fuck yourself," which is really odd because he/she had one of the more rational, level-headed comments on this otherwise ridiculous thread. YOU are the one who initiated the foul language. YOU are the one who wrote something that was uncalled for. Don't be upset when somebody calls you out on it.

And he/she/whatever was not saying that people from Kentucky are racists, but that people who refer to a 46 year-old, African-American man as a "boy" are either racist, or really insensitive. Calling a 46-year-old, African-American man as "boy" can probably be construed as racist, whether in the South, the north, California, or wherever. It is just not something one does. It is especially not a term that one Senator would call another. And I don't think that Senators Obama and Davis are drinking buddies and good ole' boys.

Oh, one more thing. Since you are really into history and geography. Yes, Kentucky remained with the Union during the Civil War, but Kentucky was still a slave state. And Kentucky is still considered to be part of the South (It is mentioned in the book, "Having it Y'all.").

Posted by Tonto Goldstein, the Jewish Cowboy | April 14, 2008 11:18 PM

The remarks were clearly meant to mock and denigrate Senator Obama. Which makes it hard to believe that at the same time he was using "boy" to be collegial in the way one might say, "He's a a good ol' boy."

Posted by Walter Sobchak | April 14, 2008 11:24 PM

The more I think of it , the more I'm skeptical that Rep. Geoff Davis intentionally uttered what would be an unforgivable insult to the man who will almost certainly be President.

Criticism of a Democrat's qualifications by a Republican is part of the political rough and tumble and is part of the game.

But a personal insult like that is not -- and would be an invitation to have the President cut your nuts off. To use all his power to fuck your Congressional district and ensure you do not get any crumbs from the federal pie.

It would make you a leper shunned even by your Republican friends -- scared that some of the shitstorm will hit them.

If you are a Congressman in the minority party, you don't start that kind of a war on a whim. I think Davis's apology shows that he understands that, even if the posters here do not.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 11:27 PM

Don, I'm not so sure you should give Davis's apology that much credit. It read well to me at first. But on closer examination, he says that he did not mean to impugn Senator Obama. Which is very clearly false. Impugning is exactly what he was doing.

Posted by Walter Sobchak | April 14, 2008 11:32 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I present to you; Your proud Southern Democrat for Obama, (Drum roll........) Don Williams.

See the excuse making crap above.

Posted by Loviatar | April 14, 2008 11:33 PM

Re Loviatar's comment "I present to you; Your proud Southern Democrat for Obama "
-----------
Again, screw you, Loviatar. I've lived here in Philadelphia for 17 years -- and prior to that, in Washington DC for 12.

I think even someone as ..er.. challenged as yourself would understand that if I've been attending Klan meetings, it's been via one hell of commute.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 11:50 PM

Don Williams writes: "Given past history, it is careless and insensitive for a white man to use it to refer to an Afro-American male. On the other hand, if Davis did look on Obama as a peer, he may have used it without thinking, in the same way he would have used it in speaking of a white man.

This code word bullshit and political correctness -- this attitude that people in Washington and New York DICTATE the mores and manners of society -- really pisses off the rest of the country. Matthew shouldn't make pronouncements on the intricate practices of Southern racism unless he has lived in the South for a while.

Maybe Davis is really a racist -- if so, that attitude will readily reveal itself if given a little time and a little rope. When it does, then attack him with cause and with evidence. The racists I've seen don't apologize, as Davis has done."

He didn't apologize for the racial insensitivity - he apologized for some bullshit "foreign policy" thing. His apology was a further insult, and it was a complete piece of shit.

"It would make you a leper shunned even by your Republican friends -- scared that some of the shitstorm will hit them.

If you are a Congressman in the minority party, you don't start that kind of a war on a whim. I think Davis's apology shows that he understands that, even if the posters here do not."

I think Davis's apology shows him to be a shallow asshole. I think the odds are quite high that he is, indeed, a racist, which would certainly not place him outside of the mainstream of today's Repiglican Party.

If Obama is the Dem nominee watch the campaign unfold. There will be plenty of Davises and plenty of apologists for them - just as there were for that fucking idiot George Allen.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 14, 2008 11:51 PM

The "boy" comment was clumsy at best. Considering that the phrase "you people" is considered racist by some hypersensitive African-Americans, and that "boy" actually has a history of being used as a demeaning term against blacks, it was a poor choice of words. But not necessarily racist. It's been a really long time since "boy" has had any currency in that "They call me MISTER Tibbs!" context.

That said, complaining that Rep. Davis didn't explicitly note the part of his comments that could be construed as offensive is disingenuous. He didn't acknowledge it for the same reason Obama didn't acknowledge why his "bitter" comments could be construed as offensive; because to acknowledge such a tone-deaf mistake is to compound it. Far easier to use a cop-out formulation like Obama's, e.g., "I should have chosen my words better, I'm sorry if anyone was offended" -- that sort of thing.

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 11:58 PM

I don't understand what everyone is getting upset about. Everyone knows that white men in the South commonly refer to people of Indian heritage as "macacca" - it's just harmless Southern funnin' - nobody ever means anything by it - right?

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | April 15, 2008 12:04 AM

Re MoeLarryandJesus's comment "If Obama is the Dem nominee watch the campaign unfold. There will be plenty of Davises and plenty of apologists for them - just as there were for that fucking idiot George Allen."
----------

The LAST THING Obama needs is a bunch of stupid, white trash assholes putting out the IMAGE that Obama is NOT a US Senator with Gravitas --a man with the personal power and presence to run this country.

That instead, Obama is some affirmative action, special ed handicapped child that needs the protective care and fierce overreaction of hysterical nannies lest his fragile ego be damaged.

People of REAL POWER don't need an ignorant claque throwing hissy fits. People of REAL POWER don't even acknowledge insults -- they just crush the insulter at an opportune moment later. By their silence, they scare the living shit out of anyone inclined to fuck with them.

You guys are clowns.

Posted by Don Williams | April 15, 2008 12:07 AM

Y'all ain't foolin nobody when you pretend that ya'll don't know calling Obama "boy" was racist. Now if he'd called him "that ol' boy Obama" I'd have a different take.

Some people.

I've got some serious Kentucky roots and am going to call bullshit on anyone trying to defend that remark as non-racist. Don't know why they bother. It's not going to hurt Davis one bit.

Posted by Curt M | April 15, 2008 12:15 AM

You have all these very strong pro-Obama Southerners like Don Williams and Slothrop being viciously insulted for being insufficiently "anti-racist", or perhaps having had great-grandfathers who might be suspected of having been insufficiently anti-racist.

Thank you, RKU. I refuse to be lambasted for not judging and stereotyping people. Perhaps we should examine why/what/how the statements were made before denouncing someone's character. I think Obama would agree. Recall the "white grandmother" comment from the race speech.

That being said, I do agree with glasnot:
I think it's okay to point out that his terminology is racially insensitive. That's a lot clearer than "racist" and fundamentally a more accurate description of the type of problem being discussed.

We all may say things that are racially insensitive without even knowing it. To cherry-pick a comment and lump that with the fact that it came from someone from a particular party from a particular region and draw a hasty conclusion about that person's character is wrong. I wish some of you on your moral high horse would take a page from Obama's book!

Posted by Slothrop | April 15, 2008 12:16 AM

Hey, I have little use for Republicans. George Allen was a racist: there were multiple data points, and the term meant "monkey". It was a much clearer case.

All I'm saying is that I, for one, a liberal northern democrat with black friends, have never heard of "boy" being used racially in modern times. I've been called it in a pejorative manner by white guys quite a few times in my life, and I never got the idea that they were calling me black.

Frankly, Don Williams is right about one thing: Barack Obama should downplay the racial angle of these marginal cases. A lot of white people, including Democrats and Independents, get irritated by overzealous accusations of racism in what they perceieve to be ambiguous cases.

If that lulls a Republican into going way over the line and making an *obviously* racist statement - so much the better.
To be a good politican - or political team - you have to be able to tell dog whistles from obvious pandering - messages that 100% of the population will interpret the same bad way, from subtler ones - and react accordingly. If large numbers of Americans wouldn't call this racist, than Obama shouldn't.

Or he will lose. Fair or not. Accurate or not. Jesse Jackson's quickness to play the racism card might have been literally accurate in some ultimate sense, but it also killed his electoral prospects.

Posted by glasnost | April 15, 2008 12:25 AM

Davis's 4th District butts up against INDIANA and OHIO.

Yeah, that's the Deep South all right. I can hear the bloodhounds baying and smell the magnolia from here.

Make that "Geographically Challenged Clowns".

Posted by Don Williams | April 15, 2008 12:31 AM

The people here pretending that calling a 46 year old black man 'boy' isn't racist are fucking retarded. Who the fuck do they really think they are kidding?

EVERYONE knows that if you call a black man 'boy', you're reallying saying 'n*****'. Anyone who says otherwise is a piece of shit liar. I'm 26, white, and I live in upstate NY. I've heard this phrase used for the local blacks a shitload of a lot, and it's always racial. Some of these people are just fucking lying, and acting like any accusation of racism against any white man is a slander on all white people everywhere. Grow the fuck up, if you defend this you're defending racism and there aint 1 in 10 white folks who will stand by you.

Posted by soullite | April 15, 2008 12:35 AM

I'd bet my bottom dollar that every last one of the folks defending this are from the south. Hate to break it to you folks, but there isn't anyone from any other region thats going to go 'oh, the southern white guy thinks this is okay, so it can't possibly be racist.'.

Thats just not going to happen. Obama isn't winning these states anyway. He's better off making an example of them to show Westerners why they should side with us instead of the south. Triangulation still has it's uses, I guess.

Posted by soullite | April 15, 2008 12:48 AM

soullite, your your mind is ironically narrow. I recommend acquainting yourself with Obama's message.

Posted by Slothrop | April 15, 2008 12:53 AM

soullite, nobody's condoning what the guy said. we just find some of your reactions to it incredibly unsavory. your your mind is ironically narrow. I recommend acquainting yourself with Obama's message.

Posted by Slothrop | April 15, 2008 12:55 AM

soullite, nobody's condoning what the guy said. we just find some people's reactions to it incredibly unsavory. your your mind is ironically narrow. I recommend acquainting yourself with Obama's message.

Posted by Slothrop | April 15, 2008 12:56 AM

Anyone want to start a betting pool on how many current pro-Obama commenters get called "racist" just one too many times and will have "gone Petey" by Election Day?

Posted by RKU | April 15, 2008 12:59 AM

I'm from the South. Deep South, even. And yeah, I'll confirm two points:

(1) Indeed, people there sometimes use boy as a neutral or even affection term, somewhat similar to "guy."

(2) Davis' comment is as racist as they come, and the people claiming it isn't are, for whatever reason, covering for racism.

No one calls a grown man boy in a derogatory manner unless he's black. And if you think Davis was being affectionate toward Obama, you're as big a fucking idiot as they come.

Posted by Zephyrus | April 15, 2008 1:09 AM

Which isn't to say Obama should make a campaign issue out of it. If he plays this for politics, he should just make a show of accepting the apology and saying some kind words of reconciliation, a la Biden's articulate. And he'll do either that or just quietly accept they apology. He's not going to use it to stir up votes, thank goodness; his campaign knows better than that.

Posted by Zephyrus | April 15, 2008 1:13 AM

This code word bullshit and political correctness -- this attitude that people in Washington and New York DICTATE the mores and manners of society -- really pisses off the rest of the country.

Pretty accurate, and it is why NYC Jews, SF Democrats, the Ivies, Inside the Beltway Elites are disliked. Even hated.
The constant pressure and pushiness that they are entitled to dictate to others in the country the correct attitudes on gay marriage, gun ownership, religious worship, displays of patriotism, what a lawyer in NYC deems "good" or "bad" ag subsidies.....what phrases in use in other regions are "permissable" or not, even proper word pronunciation - those stupid Flyover are too ignorant to pronounce nuclear right.

(If you go to a nuclear power plant in America, you will notice engineers and reactor operators who work the industry and hold advanced degrees or high IQs come out of one of the "elites" in the military - the nuclear power program. Which is dominated by Southerners that pronounce it "nukular" as a dialect difference)

********************
Chris Ford touches on a criticism of Obama that's the one of the only really intelligent criticisms I've heard; namely, that Obama is a man who has never really failed and this really might not be a good thing to have in a national leader.
I'm for him anyway though.
Posted by mike

Nothing wrong with being cocky and arrogant if you can back it up.
But two big failures by Obama on exercises involving decision-making in a nuclear crisis (one in debate, one acc. to Rep. Davis) make me question if he was ready two years into the Senate, with no military or executive decision-making experience - to be a President. Apparantly in his cockiness, arrogance that he is a rarified class of educated elites, and ability to attract a mass of followers, Obama thinks he is.

As I mentioned earlier, the arrogance and cocksureness is something every military and business seeks to temper in ambitious young execs - so they don't badly damage themselves and others. All Obama has had since grade school is people schmooching his ass and telling him he is special and able to do anything - like, now! No tempering.

*****************
So far, I am surprised, though not by Black Messiah followers, that the focus is on a mild PC violation rather than Obama failing to function as an exective decision-maker in an a national security crisis Simulation that involved nuclear weapons. After his "Two cities nuked? My main job is to ensure 1st Responders are supported" answer in the Iowa debates.
Maybe he can pick Biden and have Biden deal with all the details and decisions on what to do if the Indians and Paks begin a limited nuclear war -while he composes and practices a soaring speech on the crisis.
But that is not what we elect Presidents for. While we honor great, inspiring speakers like Oprah, Rev Wright, Billy Graham and Tony Robbins with 30K to 100K honorariums...but don't want
those "boys and gals" fingers on the nuke button.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 15, 2008 1:33 AM

Don Williams quotes and writes: "Re MoeLarryandJesus's comment "If Obama is the Dem nominee watch the campaign unfold. There will be plenty of Davises and plenty of apologists for them - just as there were for that fucking idiot George Allen."
----------

The LAST THING Obama needs is a bunch of stupid, white trash assholes putting out the IMAGE that Obama is NOT a US Senator with Gravitas --a man with the personal power and presence to run this country.

That instead, Obama is some affirmative action, special ed handicapped child that needs the protective care and fierce overreaction of hysterical nannies lest his fragile ego be damaged.

People of REAL POWER don't need an ignorant claque throwing hissy fits. People of REAL POWER don't even acknowledge insults -- they just crush the insulter at an opportune moment later. By their silence, they scare the living shit out of anyone inclined to fuck with them.

You guys are clowns."

You know, Don, this is the second time you've completely misunderstood my point, which makes me wonder if you're often drunk when you post. Note that I generally agree with you, for what it's worth.

It isn't about what Obama "needs." It's about what the Repiglicans will do to stop him. And they'll pull out all of their weapons, INCLUDING the ignorant racist BULLSHIT that Geoff Davis just used. Davis may have spoken thoughtlessly, but his comment is out there now and it will reverberate in the usual talk radio spots - and please don't tell me Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and so on aren't racists, because they damn well are.

OF COURSE not all Kentuckians are racists - far from it. But I'd bet most Kentucky Republicans - certainly a majority - agree with Geoff Davis's comment and see NOTHING wrong with it. Do you really disagree with me on that score?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 15, 2008 1:34 AM

OF COURSE not all Kentuckians are racists - far from it. But I'd bet most Kentucky Republicans - certainly a majority - agree with Geoff Davis's comment and see NOTHING wrong with it. Do you really disagree with me on that score?

i'll give my opinion of that. i think the neocon contingency of Kentuckians wouldn't be offended if they heard those words and nobody was around that got offended by it. but i think if they knew people were truly hurt by the words (and not just riding a moral high horse), they would find them extremely regretful. i disagree with the southern neocon positions, but they are not rooted in hate. perhaps ignorance, but not hate.

i grew up in a city with a 50% african american population and had (and still have) many black friends. we didn't walk on eggshells around each other. southerners (white and black) are typically very laid back and don't hold themselves to the rigorous politically correct standards that other people do. but that does not make them any less compassionate. it's quite the opposite. perhaps one will never understand without engulfing himself in the culture.

Posted by Slothrop | April 15, 2008 1:56 AM

If going round calling people like Barrack Obama "boy" is a perfectly normal and common thing to do in the South, why has it apparently not happened at all before in the campaign, not even once?

In related news, if one's been to a "highly classified national security simulation", is this really a suitable subject for dinner table conversation at a fundraiser? Does the term "classified" mean nothing any more?

Posted by dsquared | April 15, 2008 2:36 AM

i'm sorry, is no one going to make note of the fact that "Chris Ford" is spewing anti-semitism all over this thread?

i.e.

"Pretty accurate, and it is why NYC Jews, SF Democrats, the Ivies, Inside the Beltway Elites are disliked. Even hated."

or

"Northern Jewish media"

stfu

Posted by riise | April 15, 2008 3:10 AM

When do we start hearing "Grandpaw" for McCain?

Posted by toby | April 15, 2008 3:58 AM

The seemingly unemployed Matt Yglesias cuts off the part of the quote where Davis calls Obama a "snake oil salesman" so that he can make it easier to claim that Davis "seems unwilling to grasp what the nature of the problem is here." Meanwhile, "fourties" year-old Obama makes the same non-apology and walks away clean.

Posted by I cling to religion 'cuz I'm poor | April 15, 2008 4:58 AM

WHO is behind the Barack Obama for President
"moo-vement"?

.................. GE ......................

and a gaggle of other corporate elitists.

Are a lot of working class Americans Bitter?

Well, they SHOULD be: Another GE candidate for President SOLD to the public by the Corporate-Controlled "Mainstream MEDIA ... Ronald Reagan ... began the MASSIVE Robbery of the American people that has continued to this day.

About every day,& sometimes several times a day, the TV Talking heads say: "The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer"

... & You'd Think ... after nearly 30 years they would FINALLY ASK: ( & Answer) WHY?

The answer is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%'s to the low 30%'s.

(If you made $100 million & your tax rate was 70% you would pay $70 million to Uncle Sam & keep $30 million ... earning interest, or dividends THE NEXT YEAR on that $30 million. If, instead, you paid $30 million in taxes and KEPT $70 million --- You'd make a lot MORE money the next year on that $70 million - in interest, or dividends)

Simple, tax the rich a lot less AND they damn sure WILL get a whole lot richer a whole lot faster.

There was 2 PARTS to Reaganomics tho. The second part was: The Two-Tier Wage Structure"

i.e. Pay the Top level "executives" a Whole LOT MORE; Pay everybody else a Whole LOT LESS. (Newspapers & TV in the early 80's had articles & coverage of the "Two-Tier Wage Structure" that CORPORATE America trotted out IN CONCERT with Reagan's election & tax cuts.)

IF its CORPORATE POLICY to PAY Everybody else a WHOLE LOT LESS ... everybody else is going to get ... a whole lot poorer ... huh.

a. It was deliberate. b. Its been going on for nearly 30 years.

Next Question: Is Obama likely to fix it?

Answer: Hell No. Because THE SAME PEOPLE are running him for President - The SAME WAY they got Reagan/ Bush1 / Bush2 elected: MEDIA PROPAGANDA.

GE owns MSNBC & NBC. AOL Time Warner owns CNN. Westinghouse owns CBS.
(GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet).

They have interlocking directorships. THEY ARE the Corporate-Controllers of the Corporate-Controlled Media.

MSNBC/NBC have become the CHIEF propaganda mouthpiece of the Obama Pushers ... (BOPN - Barack Obama Propagands Networks) - just like FOX has been the the Bush Propaganda Network all these years.

There are no more Journalists, no more NEWS People. They have all become court jesters and clowns doing their bit to please their corporate masters ..Top Level PAID A WHOLE LOT MORE -----------Media whores.

Here's a glimpse of one of the $Billions of Dollar TAXPAYER RIPOFF Reasons GE wants to "elect" Obama President: GE & Westinghouse are in the business of building nuclear power plants.

The Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 - made it possible for the nuclear industry to begin planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants (licensing hearings are already scheduled for the first few of them).

No new nuke plants were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky. The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for them by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke building loans that default (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater".

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Clinton says her Energy plan does not include nuclear & if they want to be considered in the future they will have to FIRST Make it Cheaper and find a safe way to dispose of the nuke waste.

McCain, this week on the Campaign trail said ... we just have to face it we need to start building new, CLEAN, nuclear power plants.

i.e. The Corporate Elitists are running OBAMA AND McCain for President.

("Getting off coal to go to nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack".)

p.s. racism has nothing to do with my comments; I am partly black too.

Posted by elme | April 15, 2008 5:35 AM

Maybe he was using "boy" in more of the Foghorn Leghorn sense?

http://www.barbneal.com/foghorn.htm

Posted by El Cid | April 15, 2008 6:36 AM

Here's the audio of Davis's remarks. I can't come up with a perfect transcription, but Davis says something about Obama "probably spending many years of his life in prison," which seems like a slam on his integrity. And also feeding into the racist trope.

Also he makes some noise about Obama abstaining from a bunch of votes in the House of Representatives, proving that Davis is an idiot who can't keep his talking points straight (he's talking about Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois State Senate).

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 15, 2008 7:21 AM

I like the part where he says a former law professor has "never held a real job before."

Posted by Angry Sam | April 15, 2008 7:34 AM

Re MoeLarryand Jesus's comment "OF COURSE not all Kentuckians are racists - far from it. But I'd bet most Kentucky Republicans - certainly a majority - agree with Geoff Davis's comment and see NOTHING wrong with it. Do you really disagree with me on that score? "
-------------
1) First of all, i apologize for snarling at you, Moe. Loviatar had pissed me off with his comments about a "region".

2) I have listened to the tape. (One part of it is garbled but i think that part is covered by a news quote I found.) I think people here are confusing two different things.

Davis is obviously slamming Obama in a comtemptuous manner -- but he is doing so as a REPUBLICAN slamming a DEMOCRAT who he thinks is unqualified to be President, NOT --from what I can tell-- as a white man slamming a black man.

3) I hate to break it to people here, but on the Republican scale of loathsome depravity, there are
people FAR below Negros.

Even Welfare Negros. Lower Beings like Democrats. And of course, Northern Liberals will sneak into your house and sodomize your little children if you let them.

By contrast, Colin Powell was the Republican Secretary of State and Condi Rice has followed him in that job, after serving as the National Security advisor.

4) Are Republicans capable of playing the race card? Sure. They'll play ANY card to win. But sometimes they are not blowing the racist dog whistle.

5) The overreaction on this thread is not only an insult to Obama, it will hurt Obama if it spreads into the political forum.

Sometimes Republicans blow the "Democrats are Northern Liberals who hate Southern people and believe you are all still cross-burning bigots " whistle.
Because they know that when people are insulted, they will band together against those attacking them.

6) That also lets Republicans play the other whistle:

"What are Democrats so HYPERSENSITIVE About? Are the Democrats ANXIOUS that their candidate is Black? Isn't that anxiety itself a form of racism? The kind that always condescends -- that is happy to take the votes of black people, but which will never accept that blacks are real human beings. Will not accept that there are black individuals with the strength to be political leaders without the constant "advice" and "support" and "protection" of white liberals?"

7) As supporters of the richest 2 percent of the population, the Republicans always have to play the American people off against each other. They have NO CHOICE but to DIVIDE our people -- by race, by income, or by "Region".

8) Obama knows that you can only stand up to the plutocrats by UNITING Americans. He argues that we all are Americans -- that there is no black , white or Asian -- no North or South. No "Regions". Because to change things for the better, he NEEDS the votes and support of all Americans.

Unlike some posters here, Obama is confident that the USA of today is not the USA of 50 years ago.

Because if we were still in 1960, then John McCain is 26 years old, Hillary is 10 and there's no way America would elect a black President.

Posted by Don Williams | April 15, 2008 9:04 AM

It's because of bozos like this that I sedulously insist on "Jeffrey" as my name.

I suspect that the "boy" reference is part of is a semi-conscious to fully-conscious effort to find something terrible in the fact that Obama is black. Hillary's been doing it (through lieutenants et alia) and if Obama wins the nomination, McCain will do it (through lieutenants et alia).

Hey, that's some advantage that Obama has!

if we were still in 1960, then John McCain is 26 years old, Hillary is 10 and there's no way America would elect a black President.

That's a variant on that old joke that if Beethoven had been killed in a plane crash at 21, it would have changed the course of music. And aviation.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 15, 2008 9:14 AM

What I find amazing in this dialogue is that is very clear that most of the posters here have never had a black friend or socialized with African-Americans in a meaningful way. People have learned that "boy" is racist from watching films! From their superior education! Jesus people, there are a lot of real black people out there. Why don't you go talk to some of them. I also recommend that all the people who say that "boy" isn't racist, approach an educated 40 year old black man and in a friendly way say "hey, boy, how're you doing?" and see what kind of reaction you get. Maybe you'll learn something.

Posted by vanya | April 15, 2008 9:28 AM

6) That also lets Republicans play the other whistle:

"What are Democrats so HYPERSENSITIVE About? Are the Democrats ANXIOUS that their candidate is Black? Isn't that anxiety itself a form of racism? The kind that always condescends -- that is happy to take the votes of black people, but which will never accept that blacks are real human beings. Will not accept that there are black individuals with the strength to be political leaders without the constant "advice" and "support" and "protection" of white liberals?"

Damn Don, good stuff. Some of you could learn a lot from Don. And from Barack Obama. He has challenged America to raise its level of discourse to look beyond throwing labels around, yet we have Ivy League educated people who just don't seem to be able to grasp it. Not only do some not grasp it, they immediately charge those who are more in tune with the message as not being anti-racist enough and as being part of the problem.

Posted by Slothrop | April 15, 2008 9:31 AM

I'm from the South, and was semi-defending Confederate nostalgists a week or two back. From where I stand, calling a black 46-year old man is as clear a racist dogwhistle as you could imagine. Completely unacceptable.

Matt does have a troublingly recurring over-eagerness to tag other folks as "racist" with minimal cause, but this is not one of those times.

Posted by right | April 15, 2008 9:38 AM

Re Matt Weiner's comment "but Davis says something about Obama "probably spending many years of his life in prison," which seems like a slam on his integrity. And also feeding into the racist trope."
------------
1)If you listen to the tape, what Davis said was:

"I'm not interested in some snake oil salesman who's never had a real job before. Who was put into the US Senate BY SOME GUY who's probably going to end up spending many years of his life in prison".

2) I think it is clear that Davis was referring to Antoin Rezko -- the wealthy early backer of Obama who was indicted on federal charges of business fraud and influence peddling. See NY Times article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

3) I really hate to defend Davis -- what I'm trying to argue is that when you indict him, make it stick. Don't make Democrats look like an uninformed fools -- or like people who hurl casual charges of racism as a way of avoiding having to answer fair political criticism.

Posted by Don Williams | April 15, 2008 9:42 AM

Don, thanks for the transcription and explanation.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 15, 2008 10:34 AM

This seems way more complicated than it needs to be. A white guy in his 40s calling a black guy in his 40s “boy” is probably racist. There’s a chance that it isn’t: maybe where the white guy grew up, everyone called everyone else “boy” no matter how well they know each other. That doesn’t seem to apply here because Davis didn’t grow up in the south and all the “ol’ boy” examples I’ve seen are among friends and Davis and Obama aren’t, but whatever. But even then, it’s so stupid and so easily misinterpreted that even if the white guy isn’t racist, he’s an utter moron. You might as well call Obama’s health care policy “niggardly” or say “let’s call a spade a spade” when arguing that his political beliefs have been obfuscated. Neither expression is racial in meaning or origin, but how stupid would you have to be to use them in those contexts?

Posted by Cyrus | April 15, 2008 11:08 AM

Re Cyrus's comment "Neither expression is racial in meaning or origin, but how stupid would you have to be to use them in those contexts?"
-------------
1) I agree. At the beginning of this little soiree, I noted: "Given past history, it is careless and insensitive for a white man to use it to refer to an Afro-American male."

At the same time, people make inadvertent slips of the tongue without racial ill-will. Just the other day, Barack Obama was asked about "Obama Bin Laden" by a reporter.

2) The question is, what was the intent? Davis did not address Obama to his face as "boy". His actual statement in Covington was ,in my opinion, ambigious although ill-chosen.

When Davis saw that his comment was being construed by some as a racial slur, he HAND-DELIVERED a written apology to Obama which concluded : "My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you."

That doesn't sound like a missive from the Klan to me.

3) A news item in the Louisville Courier-Journal notes:
"Ron Washington, a retired Northern Kentucky police officer who was the first African American to serve on the Kenton County Republican Executive Committee, told the Kentucky Enquirer he got to know Davis while campaigning with him in black communities in his first congressional race.

"I know there is nothing racist about Geoff Davis," Washington said. "He is a good guy and he is not the guy he is being portrayed to be."

Ref: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080414/NEWS01/80414026

4) Given the above, to continue to attack Davis as a racist without further evidence and because he is from Kentucky -- because we all know what racist bigots people in "that region" are -- is deeply dishonest and risks harming the Obama campaign.

Through no fault of Obama's -- HE's not the one attacking Davis. Those who are should shut the fuck up and let the Obama campaign handle this.

Posted by Don Williams | April 15, 2008 11:39 AM

I'm sure this was said upthread, but that part of the apology was given because he also called Obama a "snake-oil salesman."

The boy thing is, of course, racist as hell. But there were 2 apologies for 2 different remarks. Both were given at the same time--and both were inadequate--but it would be unfair to confuse one for the other and then claim the apology didn't make sense.

Posted by cynical again | April 15, 2008 11:41 AM

Wow, rarely have I seen people fall so hard for trolling. Slothrop et. al. are either ignorant or trolling, there is no other possible explanation. Either way, they're not worth engaging. Calling a 45 year old black man boy is racist, period.

Posted by Gus | April 15, 2008 12:01 PM

I wonder if Don Willams/Slothrop and that crew would feel comfortable defending Rep. Davis if he made the following remark about Sen. Lieberman.

"That kike's finger does not need to be on the button."

or Sen. Leahy.

"That guido's finger does not need to be on the button."

or Sen. Kennedy.

"That mick's finger does not need to be on the button."

or Rep. Murtha.

"That polack's finger does not need to be on the button."

I mean its all part of our culture isn't it, I call my jewish, italian, irish and polish friends stuff like that all the time.

I don't know whose worse the bigots and racist who spout this stuff or the fools, naive or otherwise (slothrop, I speaking to you) who cover for them.

Posted by Loviatar | April 15, 2008 12:01 PM

Well, let's see...

It seems that some of the local white Democratic commenters from the South and PA who strongly support Obama are really "racists"...

I guess that means the vastly larger fraction of white Democrats from the South and PA who *don't* support Obama must be "super-racists"...

And that puts the whites from the South and PA who aren't even Democrats in the category of being "super-duper-racists"...

With such a vast percentage of the American electorate being various types of "racists", won't poor Saint Barack have a tough time in November? Though I suppose all those "racists" from the South and PA will probably just get blind drunk on moonshine and forget to show up at the polls on Election Day...

Posted by RKU | April 15, 2008 12:31 PM

Re Loviatar's comment "I wonder if Don Willams/Slothrop and that crew would feel comfortable defending Rep. Davis if "
----------
Of course not. But your tortured ANALOGIES are false. Davis did NOT say "That nigger's finger does not need to be on the button". If he had -or had he made any other comment that was clearly racist, I would be the first to condemn him.

I don't tolerate people on the right twisting what we say in order to hurl false charges that we on the left are "lacking in patriotism". By the same token, I don't think we on the left should indulge in the same behavior by charging people with racism if we don't have strong evidence to back up our claims. "Child molester", "rapist" or "racist" are serious charges -- they should not be abused in an unserious manner.

Posted by Don Williams | April 15, 2008 12:40 PM

Geoff has no reason to apologize. His statement was entirely accurate and appropriate. I know him and his family personally, and I can say with great confidence that there is not a racist bone is his body. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that Geoff’s statement was a commentary on Obama’s relative youth and utter incompetence to discharge the office he seeks. It had no racial overtones whatsoever, except to the people who wanted there to be. Obama, who supposedly transcends race issues, shamelessly seized upon Davis' comment as yet another opportunity to play the race card in an effort to distract attention away from his own recent gaffes (which he "regrets" but does not retract).

Isn’t it interesting that Obama, whose comments were far more incendiary, demands and expects a pass for his words, or at least an opportunity to explain them away, yet he is quick to crucify Davis for far less? Obama (and his surrogates) ought to hold himself to the same standards that he applies to Davis, but of course that is unthinkable to the liberal mindset. Let's be intellectually honest here, shall we?

Posted by Dave J. | April 15, 2008 1:15 PM

I'm a cracker through and through, myself. There's no doubt in my mind this is a fairly nasty low. Talk about integrity, damn: have enough integrity to own up to your racism, Gefferson Davis...

Posted by Jasen | April 15, 2008 1:22 PM

Sounds pretty racist to me

Posted by Luke | April 15, 2008 2:15 PM

Dave J:

If you don't understand the racial overtones of calling a black man "boy", you probably have a few racist bones in your body yourself. I also never saw anything about Obama or the campaign mentioning racism. From a quick search, it seems most stories are quoting Bill Burton calling the comment a "condescending and personal attack," but no mention of race. The fact is, the reason people are upset about it is that they are genuinely offended, not because they are taking cues from the Obama campaign to play the race card.

Posted by ibid | April 15, 2008 2:39 PM

Mr. Williams: Racism and the Klan have never been limited geographically to the South. You'll have no problem finding both in Philadelphia, DC, or a Congressional District adjacent to Ohio and Indiana.

And you might want to temper your defense of Kentucky righteousness during the Civil War. Though one of five slave states that did not secede, the state declared neutrality, and its governor said he would "furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states." The Confederacy recognized and admitted to its union a Kentucky government, and the middle star on the Confederate battle flag represents the state. Certainly loyalties there were divided, and many Kentuckians fought on both sides, but Kentuckians generally were no crusaders against slavery and rebellion.

Mr. Ford: Speaking as a military man, I will tell you that in my travels I have only seen foolish young men and other pretenders claim that ability justifies cockiness and arrogance. You may be an exception, but remember: Those who can really back it up don't have to tell people about it. They just know.

Those of you--especially white males--who think that referring to a black man of your own age as "boy" is not racist and insulting, just try saying it to his face. Notice that Representative Davis' rocks aren't that big.

I would also avoid calling women "silly twat," at least where they can hear. It annoys them, and that makes life unpleasant for those of us who enjoy their company. It also makes people wonder if you might be an ignorant oaf who cannot think of a more polite way to get your point across. And it might even start a fight.

Posted by R. Stanton Scott | April 15, 2008 2:40 PM

My formative years were in the Deep South (Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee) and I can tell you that in my experience I have never seen a white male old enough to shave be called "boy." Never.

I have, however, seen black males old enough be called "boy" frequently. It is racist.

Posted by Randy Paul | April 15, 2008 2:48 PM

Clearly racist.

Posted by White Male Southerner | April 15, 2008 2:51 PM

So, it's OK to call a middle-aged black man "boy," and if anyone in the country objects, that's a sign that Obama is getting his surrogates to play the race card? Wow. Just wow. What planet have you guys been on all this time, that you haven't yet gotten the memo that calling fully grown black men "boy" tends to piss people off?

"The Confederacy recognized and admitted to its union a Kentucky government, and the middle star on the Confederate battle flag represents the state." Yep. And one of my ancestors was part of that government. The Kentucky part of my family fought on both sides of the Civil War. My grandfather always used to remind me, "Civil war means brother fighting brother." Or at least, in the case of his family, cousin fighting cousin (and not distant cousins, either).

Posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax | April 15, 2008 3:36 PM

So, it's OK to call a middle-aged black man "boy," and if anyone in the country objects, that's a sign that Obama is getting his surrogates to play the race card? Wow. Just wow. What planet have you guys been on all this time, that you haven't yet gotten the memo that calling fully grown black men "boy" tends to piss people off?

"The Confederacy recognized and admitted to its union a Kentucky government, and the middle star on the Confederate battle flag represents the state." Yep. And one of my ancestors was part of that government. The Kentucky part of my family fought on both sides of the Civil War. My grandfather always used to remind me, "Civil war means brother fighting brother." Or at least, in the case of his family, cousin fighting cousin (and not distant cousins, either).

Posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax | April 15, 2008 3:42 PM

People of my generation and older, at least, understand this clearly: Under no circumstances does any white person ever refer to any black male old enough to walk and talk as a "boy."

"Cute kid." "Is that your son?" "That young man..." Never, ever, "boy."

If you call a black man a boy you're either supremely ignorant or a klansman. Davis was born in 1958, and lives in Kentucky.

He knows exactly what he did.

Posted by Laertes | April 15, 2008 3:46 PM

Lmao, keep making these arguments in defense of this shit. You people are stupid if you think that just because most of the white, racists you live around are ok with this that most white Americans will be.

This isn't even kind of subtle. Not a fucking chance any of you little chicken shits would say this to a grown mans face.

Posted by soullite | April 15, 2008 4:17 PM

Re Stanton Scott's comment "And you might want to temper your defense of Kentucky righteousness during the Civil War. Though one of five slave states that did not secede, the state declared neutrality, and its governor said he would "furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states." The Confederacy recognized and admitted to its union a Kentucky government, and the middle star on the Confederate battle flag represents the state. Certainly loyalties there were divided, and many Kentuckians fought on both sides, but Kentuckians generally were no crusaders against slavery and rebellion. "
--------------
1) You are full of shit, Mr Scott.

And that's being charitable --because the alternative judgment is that you are deliberately lying about easily determined historical facts.

It made NO SENSE for a "slave state" to fight with the UNION Army.

2) The FACTS are:
a) Kentucky tried to head off the Civil War by mediating between the North and South.

b) When that was not possible, the elections of June 1861 returned Pro-UNION delegates in NINE out of ten Kentucky districts.

Governor Magoffin, whose 1861 statement you quote above, had to resign because his orders were constantly overridden by that Pro-Union legislature.

c) Pro-Union delegates outweighed Confederate sympatherizers 76–24 in the Kentucky House and 27–11 in the Senate.

d) on September 7, 1861, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a resolution ordering Confederate forces --but NOT UNION -- OUT of Kentucky. Magoffin vetoed the resolution, but both houses overrode the veto, and Magoffin issued the proclamation. The General Assembly ordered the Union flag to be raised over the state capitol in Frankfort and declared its allegiance with the Union.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War#Elections_of_1861

3) Here is the list of the 80 Regiments that Kentucky supplied to the Union Army:
http://www.civilwararchive.com/unionky.htm

4) Kentucky dead in the Union Army were more than those from Connecticut or New Hampshire. See
http://www.civil-war.net/searchstates.asp?searchstates=Kentucky

5) Yes, there were slaveholders in Kentucky at the start of the war but they were a minority. Just as there were slaveholders in New England in the decades prior the Civil War. How many Massachusetts ships had hauled slaves from Africa to the South?

Yes, there were Confederate sympathizers in Kentucky but they were distinctly in the minority and their "shadow government" that fled to the Confederacy was a pathetic joke. The number of Kentuckians who left the state and joined the Confederate Army was a small percentage of those in the Union Army.

Posted by Don Williams | April 15, 2008 4:42 PM

Obama supporters have absolutely NO leg to stand on here. (see Rev. Wright, meeting with 'Ludacris' in senate office, etc...etc...)
This is funny though - http://nationalsquib.com/index.php/barack-obama-ludacris/

Posted by Alice | April 15, 2008 6:33 PM

Obama supporters have absolutely NO leg to stand on here. (see Rev. Wright, meeting with 'Ludacris' in senate office, etc...etc...)
This is funny though - http://nationalsquib.com/index.php/barack-obama-ludacris/

Posted by Alice | April 15, 2008 6:33 PM

Obama supporters have absolutely NO leg to stand on here

What does this have to do with Obama supporters? Dumbass.

Posted by bla | April 15, 2008 7:06 PM

So if a fully grown black man meets with anyone you don't like, then he loses the right to be regarded as an adult, and no one has any grounds for complaint if he's called a "boy"? Even though white politicians routinely associate with people other people don't like, and don't get called "boy"? It's good to know the rules.

And, Alice, for me it has nothing to do with support for Obama; I'm an equal opportunity objector to sexist remarks about Clinton and racist remarks about Obama. Especially when they're this egregious.

Posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax | April 15, 2008 7:10 PM

Mr. Williams:

Kentucky was a slave state with 226,000 slaves in 1860--almost 20% of the population. More Kentuckians owned slaves than Missisippians or Alabamians--in fact only Virginia and Georgia had more slave owners.

Your source for the number of union soldiers from Kentucky uses a 1908 book as a reference, and at any rate covers only Northern Armies. More recent sources estimate 64K white Union troops from Kentucky, and another 25K black Kentuckians who joined the Federals. Forty thousand Kentuckians fought for the south, much more than a "small percentage."

The Kentucky General Assembly sought neutrality, but made no effort to end slavery or fight for the Union against it. Only 1364 Kentuckians voted for Lincoln in the election of 1860 (of 146,216 total votes). Breckinridge (a Kentuckian) won 53,143 votes in his home state, and Bell (a slaveholding Tenneseean) carried the state with 66,058. This suggests strong support for slavery in Kentucky, whether or not voters chose a GA in 1861 that preferred neutrality.

As I pointed out before, Kentuckians showed loyalty to both sides, and certainly many Bluegrass Staters heroically fought the institution of slavery. But "easily determined historical facts" do not support an argument that Kentucky was not a slave state, or that most of its population opposed slavery or fought predomiantly for the Union. It just ain't so.

Still, I will refrain from accusing you of lying deliberately, or speculating on your contents. Please do the same.

Posted by R. Stanton Scott | April 16, 2008 6:08 PM

I was reminded of this thread last night when I watched Independence Day on satellite last night. I assume everyone here has seen this movie; even Matt probably watched as a young teen when it came out in '94. So do you remember the potentially racially insensitive comment made by Bill Pullman's character, the President? No? Neither did I, until I watched the last half of the movie again last night.

*SPOILER ALERT (On the off chance someone reading this hasn't seen Independence Day)*

Remember the part where Bill Pullman gets out of his fighter plane after he and the rest of the pilots destroy the big alien ship? Referring to Will Smith's Marine fighter pilot character and Jeff Goldblum's tech geek character (who had delivered the computer virus to the alien mother ship), Pullman's President asks the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, "Any word from our delivery boys yet?". He called an adult black man a boy, and until last night, I never thought twice about that line. You probably didn't either. Perhaps we should consider context next time instead of rushing to impute racist motives to a word that isn't necessarily racist in intent.

Posted by Fred | April 16, 2008 6:28 PM

Fred, that was the stupidest post in a long thread full of stupid posts. Congratulations.

Posted by Steve D. | April 16, 2008 8:16 PM

Integrity?

Comments (155)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories