Whipping Out The Ghetto Pass

[Ta-Nehisi]

And now for some comic relief:

Commenter BigSister takes Obama post-racialism a little far and claims that I don't see race-baiting from Clinton because I'm "not black." OK, so I confess, it is indeed true that I'm a terrible dancer, I played Dungeons & Dragons as a kid, and I've got the sort of jump-shot that careens over backboard.

BUT--in my defense--I have dedicated my life to defending the beauty of fried whiting, congac, and Nia Long. More to the point, my parents are, you know, black. Alright, they are a brownish/yellow, but the point is either I am black, or I need to get a paternity test done on my son. I know I'm addicted to The Flaming Lips and all, and the time has come to "get beyond race," but come on guys, I live in Harlem for Christ sake. And I once wore a daishiki. And my name is Ta-Nehisi. Hello?

Comments

You're into the Flaming Lips? Gosh, I was with ya till then.

Posted by Brent | May 27, 2008 10:24 AM

We have two people campaigning at least nominally on the notion America needs to move beyond gender and race considerations when electing public officials. There's a lot of damn gender and race based politicking going on in both their camps of supporters. I don't think either candidate is well served by some of the people advocating their election. Whatever happened to a stern phone call and an unambiguous "STFU" when appropriate? Unless of course you condone what's being said and done?

Posted by steve duncan | May 27, 2008 10:32 AM

I have dedicated my life to defending the beauty of fried whiting, congac . . .

You've just demonstrated your worthiness as a guest poster for Matt's blog. :-)

Posted by RSA | May 27, 2008 10:35 AM

and you went to Howard, fool! Don't forget that! On a serious note, its good to see you blowing up, homey

Jonathan

Posted by Jonathan Gray | May 27, 2008 10:44 AM

As a frequently commenting brother from another mother, I'm willing to split the difference between you and Big Sister. While I don't think that Bill and Hillary began this campaign with some race-baiting strategy, I do think that as time went on and Obama began accumulating substantial support that they took what advantages they could. The Democratic party is a pretty big tent, and while I would put us ahead of Republicans by miles in terms of race-relations there are still substantial numbers of people who while not technically racist were going to view Obama from a prism heavily influenced by his race. To me, the Clinton campaign was willing to take advantage of that opportunity if only a times. Let's not forget what the Sista Soljah moment was all about.

I personally have great affection for the Clinton's still but they are who they are. They've always been willing to toe the line when it comes to campaigning. You have to understand Matt that AA have had a deep loyalty towards the Clinton's and just the hint of betrayal has caused a major rift. You under-estimate how upset many AA are at the Clinton's whether deservedly or not.

Posted by Derrick | May 27, 2008 10:46 AM

"BUT--in my defense--I have dedicated my life to defending the beauty of fried whiting, congac, and Nia Long."

Or even better, all three at once.

It's always great to see a writer who has a sense of humor about themselves.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 10:51 AM

The Democratic party is a pretty big tent, and while I would put us ahead of Republicans by miles in terms of race-relations there are still substantial numbers of people who while not technically racist were going to view Obama from a prism heavily influenced by his race.

This goes both ways though. For some reason we're allowed to talk about it as a negative when it comes to white people, but, as in the case of Geraldine Ferraro, or Bill Clinton discussing the demographics of the SC primary, if we take notice of it in terms of Obama's overwhelming support in among African-Americans, suddenly we're racists.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 27, 2008 10:51 AM

While we're on the subject: Why doesn't the NBA finally just throw in the towel and allow players to pass around blunts and sip on a 40 right there on the bench?

Posted by steve duncan | May 27, 2008 10:52 AM

For some people politics and sociology are a sport that can be safely and anonymously played on the blogs. Sometimes that brings out the hooligan and partisan in the best of us. That might account for some of the vociferousness and incivility in the debate, which indeed gets old. However, race and gender are interesting and relevant. Obama addressed race in his post-Wright speech. I wouldn't call that "damn" race based politicking but in fact fruitful and probably necessary.

Plus what Brent initially said.

Posted by lk | May 27, 2008 10:54 AM

I'm not sure mere ancestry can overcome being a D&D-playing bad dancer. If you bite your lower lip while badly dancing, that would clinch it.

Posted by deborah | May 27, 2008 11:02 AM

two people campaigning at least nominally on the notion America needs to move beyond gender and race

Eh? Has Clinton said anything like that? She's specifically talked about gender as a reason to vote for her, and Obama has done nothing similar with race (which is not to say that his race isn't helping him get some votes, while losing others).

Ethel-to-Tilly, can you really not understand the difference between voting for a candidate because they're a good candidate and have a chance of being the first president of their race or gender and voting against someone because of their race or gender? The people voting for Clinton and Obama have voted for plenty of men and whites in previous elections.

Posted by KCinDC | May 27, 2008 11:09 AM

Depends on who's definitions you're using, of course. I think if you use Deborah Dickerson's there's like, 12 black people in the US. Luckily, nobody cares what Deborah Dickerson thinks.

Posted by Freddie | May 27, 2008 11:11 AM

Black and beautiful! I LOVE the Dungeons and Dragons bit. It's funny to think you and Stephen Colbert, who is clearly melanin-deprived, had that in common growing up. Great minds...

Posted by Beth in VA | May 27, 2008 11:26 AM

I dunno, I'd have thought that being named "Tennessee" would cut against you...

Posted by Ernie Ford | May 27, 2008 11:46 AM

For some reason we're allowed to talk about it as a negative when it comes to white people, but, as in the case of Geraldine Ferraro, or Bill Clinton discussing the demographics of the SC primary, if we take notice of it in terms of Obama's overwhelming support in among African-Americans, suddenly we're racists.

Geraldine Ferraro, of course, did not simply state that Obama was getting overwhelming support from African-Americans. She said that him being black was the main reason he was doing so well. Which is, of course, nonsense. It ignored his organizational and inspirational abilities, his political talents, and his intelligence. And it also implied that the numbers voting for Obama because of his race were significantly greater than those voting against him because of his race, which was, I submit, baloney.

Clinton's quip about Jesse Jackson was cut from the same cloth, implying that Obama won South Carolina only because he was black, conveniently forgetting that Obama started out behind in South Carolina, and managing to bash both Jackson and Obama in one blow (Jackson drew support from more than just blacks, too -- he won Michigan and Alaska).

Black candidates have historically had to overcome many obstacles to gain office, racism being only one of those; obstacles that any ability to capture the black vote has never outweighed.

Posted by Scott P. | May 27, 2008 11:50 AM

Ethel-to-Tilly, can you really not understand the difference between voting for a candidate because they're a good candidate and have a chance of being the first president of their race or gender and voting against someone because of their race or gender?

Sure - why do you assume because I point it out that I "really not understand" - is that the way you argue by belittling someone who brings something up that you don't like?

Why is only side aloud to talk about race and only in that one context? It seems that whenever anyone on the Clinton side makes mention of the fact that a huge amount of support for Obama comes from the black community - that in itself suddenly becomes a racist statement. In the examples that I brought up, neither Geraldine Ferraro nor Bill Clinton are racist by any stretch of the imagination - look at their public record - but you wouldn't know that from Obama supporters who manufactured huge brouhahas because they dared bring the subject up. Is it "race-baiting" or "racist" to point it out?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 27, 2008 11:53 AM

Mr. Cotes,

Did BigSister realize it was you writing and not Mr. Yglesias? And if her response would have been different, what does that say?

Posted by DAS | May 27, 2008 12:05 PM

Ethel-to-Tilly, I apologize if you felt I was belittling you, but if you understand there's a difference, then why do you discuss them as parallel phenomena and ask why you're not "allowed to talk about it as a negative" that black people have an interest in seeing a black president (just as women have an interest in seeing a woman president)?

Posted by KCinDC | May 27, 2008 12:08 PM

Similarly, Matt Yglesias isn't Jewish because he isn't hawkish enough about Israel stuff.

Posted by Brent | May 27, 2008 12:09 PM

Steve Duncan is an idiot.

Posted by Stacy | May 27, 2008 12:14 PM

Associated Press

Updated: May 27, 2008, 11:23 AM ET
PARIS -- Yannick Noah is perplexed by "all that fuss" surrounding the arrest of his basketball player son, who was charged with marijuana possession and having an open container of alcohol.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted: April 25, 2008
DALLAS (AP) -- Hours before the Dallas Mavericks' biggest game of the year, forward Josh Howard went on the radio Friday to talk about something else-his fondness for marijuana.
"Most of the players in the league use marijuana and I have and do partake in smoking weed in the offseason sometimes," Howard told The Michael Irvin Show on a Dallas radio station. "I mean, that's my personal choice and my personal opinion, but I don't think that's stopping me from doing my job."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wonderful role models for aspiring urban youth, heh? I'm sure they're making Obama's job easier among certain, um, pale segments of the electorate also.........

Posted by stebve duncan | May 27, 2008 12:31 PM

Wow Stacy, Steve Duncan really is an idiot!

Posted by Tom | May 27, 2008 12:55 PM

Because the "pale sectors of the electorate" never never never smoke any weed.

Posted by Leigh | May 27, 2008 1:01 PM

Yeah, smoking the occasional joint is such a terrible, terrible danger to our youth and if black people do it, why, that makes it ten times worse because some bigoted, white hypocrites might take offense. What are you smoking?!

Posted by novakant | May 27, 2008 1:03 PM

"It seems that whenever anyone on the Clinton side makes mention of the fact that a huge amount of support for Obama comes from the black community - that in itself suddenly becomes a racist statement."

Since you are obviously too stupid to understand when someone tries to be nice about about correcting your willful misperception of the Clinton camps statements, here's it in a nutshell:

The Clintons are not arguing that Obama is winning because of outsized suport from the black community. They are arguing that the media and white "elitists" are so in love with the idea of a black president that they are passing over someone who's paid her dues in favor of an affirmative action hire.

Without getting into the disgusting, blatantly race-baiting aspects of this argument, one only needs to point out that, if Obama had ONLY the support of blacks and limousince liberals, he would not be leading her in every metric available to determine who should be nominated, including any reasonable calculation of the popular vote.

Posted by brewmn | May 27, 2008 1:27 PM

"Because the "pale sectors of the electorate" never never never smoke any weed.

Posted by Leigh | May 27, 2008 1:01 PM"

Have you ever voted... ON WEED?!

Posted by Jon Stewart in Half Baked | May 27, 2008 1:29 PM

I'm with you on Nia Long, brother. Doubters, hit "the Google".

Posted by Scientific | May 27, 2008 1:53 PM

From The Daily Howler, quoting John Judis' TNR piece

---------------------------------------
JUDIS (5/21/08): Clinton's second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama's challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a "transformative politician"); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting "present" in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama's connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).

John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other—and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain's doing it to Romney—a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff. My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. "I was just a fighter," Patterson had said, "but he was history." Obama, too, was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history—the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s. And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did—and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.

Posted by Rambuncle | May 27, 2008 1:54 PM

You had me at Nia Long.

Posted by Pooh | May 27, 2008 2:01 PM

Since you are obviously too stupid to understand when someone tries to be nice about about correcting your willful misperception of the Clinton camps statements, here's it in a nutshell:

The Clintons are not arguing that Obama is winning because of outsized suport from the black community. They are arguing that the media and white "elitists" are so in love with the idea of a black president that they are passing over someone who's paid her dues in favor of an affirmative action hire.

Bill Clinton caused a HUGE fuss in South Carolina back in January - Here's the MSNBC write-up:

"Another reporter asked what it said about Obama that it “took two people to beat him.” Clinton again passed. “That’s’ just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he’s run a good campaign everywhere.”

The reference to Jackson seemed a way to downplay today's result in a state where a majority of voters are African American."

You should be ashamed of yourself with your "obviously too stupid" claims when it's pretty clear that you're the one substituting your own brand of history into the discussion. Having an opinion (or a theory) is fine - assuming the other person is "obviously too stupid" because their point doesn't comport with yours is juvenile. Grow up brewmn.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 27, 2008 2:31 PM

This goes both ways though. For some reason we're allowed to talk about it as a negative when it comes to white people, but, as in the case of Geraldine Ferraro, or Bill Clinton discussing the demographics of the SC primary, if we take notice of it in terms of Obama's overwhelming support in among African-Americans, suddenly we're racists.

the reason you're getting so much resistance on this is because, at a fundamental level, this does not go both ways. you are equating things which can't be equivocated. there is no complain in the first place that 'too many white people are voting for Clinton'. the complaints about Clinton's tactics have nothing to do with voters' choices, and everything to do with how the Clintons have courted those voters. Obama didn't use any race-baiting to win majorities of the black vote, he came from quite far behind in that category, much more because he's a different type of black politician in addition to being a different type of politician in general. a lot of the black candidates who are well known, fairly or not, fit into one of two categories. 1) Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson type of folks rooted in the civil rights struggle, but largely discredited due to mistakes & errors made along the way, or 2) people who play against type and do the conservative thing, and have lots of love sent their way by right wingers who are all too happy to have a black person out there arguing in favor of their policies, see Alan Keyes. Obama doesn't fit into either of these roles, and once his viability was established, he picked up a lot more of the vote right away. but what put him over the top was how the Clintons reacted to their 'abandonment', which was to be negative, jealous, childish. circumstances leading most black folks to vote for Obama are not comparable to the Clintons themselves trying to diminish the accomplishments of MLK, or Obama via contextually inappropriate Jackson comparisons, or Clinton surrogates implying Obama was a drug dealer, or an empty suit, or a secret muslim. there is no counterpart on Obama's side, to this self-destructive behavior on the part of the Clintons.

Posted by onceler | May 27, 2008 4:49 PM

Yglesias is one of my favorite bloggers, but isn't the site getting better with him on vacation?

Posted by Mike | May 28, 2008 1:31 AM

Mike: The addition of one Mr. Coates alone makes it thrice as good.

Posted by Therese | May 28, 2008 6:37 AM