GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Pay attention to his laugh around 1:02. It just oozes the arrogance for which Obama has become known. Now, let me be clear here; I have no problem with Obama genuinely changing his position, in the right direction, on Iraq. He’s quite right that he wouldn’t a good commander in chief if he didn’t adjust to facts on the ground. All of this (sans the arrogant laugh) would sound sober and relatively sane if Obama had, prior to this, given any sense that he cared about the facts on the ground. For months he pledged to withdraw troops within 16 months. We never heard anything about possibly adjusting to the facts on the ground then. Has he just learned, after 47 years of life, that facts matter? And there’s another problem; Obama is “shifting” here, while insisting that he’s not shifting. If he genuinely said, “I was wrong, the surge worked, and I’m willing to give it the chance to further improve Iraq, and adjust my timetable accordingly” it would be both the “right” position, and a politically rsiky one. Because, it tacitly concedes that his all-knowing judgment isn’t superior to McCain’s, and because it represents a genuine flip, that even the star-struck netroots would find hard to accept. Instead, Obama has chosen to essentially adopt John McCain’s position (without acknowledging that it’s John McCain’s position of course), pretend that he’s held John McCain’s position all along, while assuring the netroots that his position is still quite anti-war, but he just intends to end the war, you know, sometime, if it’s convenient. And he seems genuinely stunned that people are daring to question him.
This is becoming a worrying habit of Barack Obama’s. He doesn’t seem to understand what sort of things strike other people as outrageous. He didn’t understand that Wright was an outrageous figure, and defended him initially. He continued to call Ayers’ a “mainstream” figure for weeks after the initial flare-up. He claimed rural voters “cling to guns and religion”, with seemingly no sense that this was something taboo. And now he’s egregiously changing positions daily, and is utterly miffed that even a normally pliant press corps finds it mildly upsetting.
To say this trait doesn’t bode well for an Obama presidency understates it. Not only is he an objectively shameless figure, but he doesn’t seem to realize this about himself. This is a Nixonian trait, if nothing else, and it’s something that, for all the talks of his “phonyness”, someone like Mitt Romney lacked. Romney never seemed entirely comfortable preaching on social issues one day, and fiscal management the next. There was a disconnect and voters saw it. Similarly, John McCain is famous for his inability to persuasively make nice with those ideas, people, or movements that he finds objectionable. When John McCain endorsed George Bush, he had to grit his teeth. When he pledges to have “got the message” on immigration, he’s comically unpersuasive. The conscience peaks through. Even Hillary Clinton could never quite sell her machinations with a straight face; she didn’t buy it anymore then we did. Obama seems entirely divorced from such concerns. Whether it’s his arrogance, or something considerably more frightening-something that’s animated tin-pot dictators from Sulla to Lenin, it boils down to the same basic conclusion- Barack Obama seemingly has no moral compass.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Are the undeniable racial undertones of this attack on Obama as arrogant and elitist really lost on republicans? This consistent drumbeat to paint him as alien, other, foreign? Its tiresome. But to the main point. I blogged months ago about the fact that McCain and Obama were actually not that dissimilar in their Iraq positions. Earlier in the primary campaign, Obama said he wanted to withdraw from Iraq but he always couched it in terms of being careful getting out, which made it patently clear that irrespective of his seriousness to withdraw, he didn’t intend to be locked into that position if his assessment of the facts once in office dictated otherwise. As the primaries went on, he left himself less wriggle room by positing this one brigade a month mess, which I thought was dumb because he was locking himself further into a position and limiting his freedom to go another route. Obama has always attempted to leave himself the room to not withdraw because a clearly smart guy like himself had to know that getting out was not going to be simple. This stuff becomes problematic now because he is backing away from the later more explicit withdrawal options he started arguing in the primaries, which is why I always thought it was dumb to have been more specific about how he would withdraw.
And the reality of it is, that he was not very different than McCain in March of 2008 when George Friedman made the following point:
There is no candidate arguing for the permanent stationing of more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. There are those who believe that political ends can and should be achieved in Iraq, and that the drawdown of forces should be keyed to achieving those ends. That is essentially the Bush policy. Then there are those who believe that the United States not only has failed to achieve its political goals but also, in fact, is not going to achieve them. Under this reasoning, the United States ought to be prepared to withdraw from Iraq on a timetable that is indifferent to the situation on the ground.
This has been Obama’s position to this point, and it distinguishes him from other candidates — including Clinton, who has been much less clear on what her policy going forward would be. But even Obama’s emphasis, if not his outright position, has shifted as a political resolution in Iraq has appeared more achievable. He remains committed to a withdrawal from Iraq, but he is not clear on the timeline. He calls for having all U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months, but qualifies his statement by saying that if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes against the group. Since al Qaeda is in fact building a base within Iraq, Obama’s commitment to having troops in Iraq is open-ended.
The shift in Obama’s emphasis — and this is the important point — means his position on Iraq is not really different from that of McCain, the most pro-Bush candidate. Events have bypassed the stance that the situation on the ground is hopeless, so even Obama’s position has tacked toward a phased withdrawal based on political evolutions.
So tell me whats different?
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Are the undeniable racial undertones of this attack on Obama as arrogant and elitist really lost on republicans?
What the — ?
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
#1 that was, without a doubt the most idiotic thing I have ever read. The reason why I prefer not to blog on liberal sites…… because clearly an intellectual chromosome is always missing. I encourage eveyone to read Barry’s anti war speeches he has made in Chicago to the moveon people. Now they are aliens.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
#1 - Are the undeniable racial undertones of this attack on Obama as arrogant and elitist really lost on republicans?
Bingo. And make no mistake, that’s exactly what this is. How is Obama “elitist” when McCain is the one with 7 (or is it 8?) houses and flits around in his wife’s private jet. He of the hundreds of millions of dollars. McCain, the “first son and grandson of four star admirals” who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class, yet was able to *somehow* gain a coveted spot to train as a Navy pilot? That McCain? Gee, hard-partying, rowdy, below-average student who used his family’s influence to jump ahead of those more qualified - who does that remind you of? That is definition of elitist. Aaron is right - calling him “arrogant” and “elitist” is the ugly dog-whistle crap: why not just come out and say “uppity”?
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
How do you get rid of moles? We used to use hoes…but I’m not into killing!
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
What? Obama is arrogant. Nothing racist about that. If you were truly tolerant as you claim you are, you wouldn’t let a black man be insulated from criticism. Racist.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
#1 tells you the level of worship behind Snobama. Andrew Sullivan just called Snobama the risen Christ for his latest moves. Look, the media has done everything possible to prop this guy up. Even with the crappy hand that W has handed to us, there is now no more excuses for not winning this election. Obama has given us all the ammo needed to take him down as a duplicitous phony. (Someone should now start buying and running some Nader ads). The question also becomes are we going to get tough and fight this year or capitulate like the Andrew Sullivans and Newsweeks of the world expect us too.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
#1.
I can probably speak for many on this site, where there have been occasions where I have deleted or altered posts challenging Senator Obama, not because they were “racist”, but because of fear that I would be called one.
Now, speaking as a man who is married to a woman who is 50% Metis, I wonder why this is, as our home is a multi-racial home? Aaron, I understand that many African Americans, including yourself, have a hard time understanding your place/role in American society, due to racism and a history of injustice. African Americans have been crying out, “what is our role in America”.
But offering charges of prejudice in place of an intellectual argument, brings nothing to the debate. Throwing these charges at Matthew E. Miller and those on this site do nothing to releave racial tensions.
I would strongly encourage you to find a more constructive argument, because if you do not, this continued use of false accusations against “white” Americans will do nothing but continue to fuel the anger, working class white’s have against the affirmative action African Americans receive, and not unlike the affirmative action many believe led Obama to secure the nomination over Hillary Clinton. You see, you think you are helping Senator Obama, but you are not, you are reinforcing that 48&% ceiling he cannot break.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Kristofer, I hope for your children’s sake your wife isn’t also a moron (assuming you’re the father).
#7 I don’t read Andrew Sullivan, but I probably would agree with his appraisal of Obama’s move to the political center. Unlike others here I liked and admired Nixon for his intelligence and pragmatism and to compare Obama to him is high praise.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
#9 Aias, since you are an anti-semitic pedophile, I take no offence to what you said.
And please do not mentioned my child, or I will report you to the FBI, as only someone as stupid as you would have posted pornographic material on this site this past weekend, without thinking about the fact that we have bloggers under the age of 19 here who participate.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
you wouldn’t let a black man be insulated from criticism. Racist.
And out comes the straw man argument. No one said that Obama should never be criticized - if you were paying attention you’d notice plenty of those on the left have been criticizing him. How is he elitist -especially when compared to McCain?
Wow Kristopher, could you be any more condescending?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Ok, settle down guys and lets resume talking about the political subject of the day…
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I must confess I dislike the personal attacks that are now par for the course at Presidential level. As Rove perfected, if you have a candidate who is difficult to sell, it is much easier to just paint the opposition as Evil Incarnate and you can win. Its a bad habit, and unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be decreasing (even though Obama & McCain were voted for in the primaries in part because of the view that they would change the way politics was done - fat chance)
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Is Obama arrogant? Possibly. If he wasn’t that would speak volumes for a guy who started out with nothing and has become a global figure, with bestsellers, successful electoral campaigns and a movement behind him that could propel him to the Presidency. Some would say he has a lot to be arrogant about (although its still wrong, of course)
However, the arguments presented here are nothing new for any politician:
“Obama is “shifting” here, while insisting that he’s not shifting.”
Well, hello, name a politician who hasn’t done this? McCain is noted for his shifts, as was Romney. Even ’straight talking Huckabee’ shifted on things like taxes to suit his campaign chances. And lets not get started on Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc.
The reason they do this is to avoid being accused of ‘flip-flopping’, which according to CNN is apparently a word(s?) associated with both McCain & Obama now. It worked for Bush in 2004, so both candidates are strenuously avoiding being associated with it.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Realist, he’s an elitist because he thinks people like me won’t vote Democrat, because we’re “clinging to guns and god”. Oh and we’re bitter too.
It’s pretty clear he thinks he’s better than most Americans. His arrogance is in his rhetoric:
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
This guy thinks he’s a Messiah.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Doug, would you prefer a politician to be indecisive, vaccilating & hesitant, to demonstrate that they are not cocky, arrogant or Messianic?
Didn’t McCain make similar pronouncements about his vision of the future not so long ago (”most troops out of Iraq, we’ve won” etc). Its not a bad thing. When the present is pretty bad for some people, its good to paint a positive confident vision of the future. refer Reagan, Ronald for more details…
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
This guy thinks he’s a Messiah.
Oh, bs Doug. People do turn (”cling”, if you will)to their religion when they feel things are going badly and out of their control. Karl Rove knew this and exploited it. Saying “(insert Dem candidate name here) will take away your guns” is consistently used as a wedge issue.
If what you quote makes Obama arrogant, than the soaring jingoism that is employed on a daily basis by Republicans and their mouth pieces (Rush, O’Reilly, et al) makes them a thousand-fold more “arrogant.” Really, what an infantile post, #15.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
#17, Rush is arrogant, but he admits it.
Obama’s problem is that he is unable to walk in to a bar and sit with “local” folks and have a beer and talk sports. The guy could not even pull off bowling.
You know what would work for Obama…..BE HIMSELF! Obama should say; yeah, I went to Harvard, I live in a mansion and I am a millionaire, and I do not understand you culturally, but I can be a good President for you and help improve your lives.
McCain is at least honest about all his faults and who he is. McCain went to Inez, Kentucky and told the citizens that he has had a different life, raised in a navy family, that his life was not as hard as their’s has been, but that he was going to serve them as best as he could. That is why McCain will be President, and not Obama. Sorry Realist, you hitched on to the wrong horse…you should have selected Hillary, and secretly, everyone in DC knows this.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Everything Obama does is all about himself and his God-complex. He’s an inexperienced version of Richard Nixon.
When his long-time mentor continued preaching racist rants, Obama didn’t criticize Jeremiah Wright for being bigoted against white people. Of course not Obama had tolerated that for 20 years.
No, Reverend Wright’s crime was to distract from Obama’s
crusadecampaign.If he’s elected his supporters may come to regret the role they played in his rise to power.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Let it all out, Doug!
“Obama hates white people”
“Obama has a secret ‘black’ agenda”
“Obama hates America”
“Obama is a secret Muslim”
Forget the dog whistle, just get it out there and say what you really mean.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Well, Obama does pal around with Caucasian terrorists like William Ayers. And he’s got no problem with socialist white folks like Father Pfleger.
Apparently if you hate our military than Obama will pal around regardless of your race.
What concerns me is why you’d come onto a website where people aren’t brainwashed by your Messiah?
Do enjoy denying reality and worshiping your Obama-Messiah in front of non-believers?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Actually Obama loves just about everyone ……………………………………………………………………………
except those who own a gun, or go to church, or live in a small town, women, active military, former military, the 60% of seniors who own stock and mutual funds, anyone with a 401K, business owners, doctors, Jewish Americans, Cubans, the Clinton’s, women in Detroit who wear hajabs, Canadian’s, …….man, my fingers are sore……let me take a break.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Is McCain back in the country yet?! I really honestly don’t see how this helps his foreign policy resume. He already has it. He has a record that makes us all know him. The American people don’t know Obama. But we know McCain. The reason why I have been calling vehemently for McCain to focus on Obama’s actual record, or lack therof and define him before Obama gets about a 10-15 point bounce in the polls. The reason why I say a 10-15 bounce is because Obama will have been given the chance to redefine himself and move from the political left to the center. This is not something that needs to wait util the fall when people supposedly start paying attention the campaign. This is not something that can wait until the heat of the 3 debates. If McCain will go after Obama on his record and pound him and pound him on it and force Obama to flip flop on issues and to move around in an uncomfortable way on the stances he has taken on the issues, McCain can take apart Obama’s credibility and Obama then loses his luster as this sparkling new type of politician who will bring change.
But remember this, if grandpa doesn’t do something soon, the poll you saw in Montana will get worse and will be a more common sight in more states that we thought were safe for us. And the states that we thought we would have a chance in that have gone Democrat will be a dream.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
McCain pals around with homosexuals who like boys (which is why they took a trip together to Colombia). He’s got no problem with fascists like Rove and Wolfowitz.
Apparently if you hate Asians (who he calls gook) or women (who he calls cunts) McCain will pal around with you.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Haven’t you played out the juvenile “Obama as Messiah” and all the accompanying rhetoric? I guess it’s amusing to the boys in your dorm, but that’s about it. I don’t think it really resonates, if you know what I mean.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
con’t from #22…… people who dislike Rev. Wright, people who do not like his wife, people who are pro-life, who are pro-marriage, children who want his autograph, did I mention women?, fox news, George Stephanopoulos, oil workers, people who drive cars, people who heat their home, people who eat food, people who eat food packaged in plastic, Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, oh no, he likes Ahmejinedad, sorry……. did I mentioned women (sweeties for you Liberals)?, talk radio hosts (well 80% of them), people who pay taxes, American corporations, Mexican’s who have jobs and have not illegal moved to the US because of NAFTA,……………………………..
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Charlie Crist is engaged!
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Aias,
Wolfowitz is Jewish, how could you call him a facist? Are all liberals as anti-gay and anti-Jewish as you are? OMG! Do your Liberal blogger friends know you are representing Obama?
Now I know why you dislike Aron Goldman and Joe Lieberman!
Aias, what is it like to sit around all day watching porn with a picture of Obama on your desktop? When he is defeated for being an arrogant socialist, how will you be able to handle it????? oh, I don’t care.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Wow, his boyfriend finally said yes.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
#29:
A friend of mine saw the two of them out of the public eye and he said:
“There was more warmth between a divorced couple than between Crist and his ‘girlfriend’”
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Wow, this website is rapidly deterioriating into childish rants between children who probably haven’t even met each other, but still accuse each other of grevious personal character faults.
I preferred race42008 when it was filled with childish rants about Romney vs Huckabee, and why Giuliani should have but didn’t win…
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
McCain to meet Mexican president at end of tour
John McCain has insisted that his trip through Mexico and Colombia was not supposed to be campaign-related. But there have been plenty of political overtones throughout.
The Republican presidential hopeful planned an early morning visit Thursday to Mexico City’s famed Basilica de Guadalupe before meeting with President Felipe Calderon as he concluded a three-day Latin American visit aimed at promoting free trade in the Western Hemisphere.
The Basilica de Guadalupe is Mexico’s holiest site for Roman Catholics, and Catholic and Hispanic voters are expected to be key swing voters in the November election. McCain’s Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, has worked to woo Catholics and Hispanics as well after those groups voted heavily for Hillary Rodham Clinton during the primary season.
McCain has said he planned to seek Calderon’s help in addressing illegal immigration, a key issue for Hispanic and many conservative voters. The Arizona senator has called for increased security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
He also has spoken out in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the proposed Colombia Free Trade deal currently stalled in Congress. On Wednesday he said as president he might pursue a possible free trade agreement that would cover the entire Western Hemisphere.
Obama has spoken out against NAFTA and the Colombian free trade pact, both of which have been unpopular in important general election swing states like Ohio. McCain wants to help workers displaced by free trade agreements to receive job training and other benefits.
McCain and his wife, Cindy, planned to fly back to Arizona on Thursday to spend the Fourth of July holiday with family.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Kristofer,
You know the 16 year old boy you exchanged emails with, and then sent nude pics to and offered drugs to in exchange for sex and claimed that this website was a good place to meet kids? Well, that was me. I search out registered sex offenders like yourself who prowl the internet looking for children. I sent your information to the police and FBI. I told them you claim to have a child who I feared you were abusing. Your days of freedom are limited, pervert.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Gov. Crist pops the question
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
#31:
I remember the good ole’ days of the famous “Rudy vs Romney” fights and this time last year trying to convince LJ to convert to Hizzoner after McCain dropped out. Or when we Rudyites went after Tommy Oliver when Thompson got into the race. And of course, the great Huckabee fights
Good times…. good times….
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Someone mentioned on another post that maybe Crist was offered VP in exchange for endoring McCain in the Florida primary? Could this be true?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I agree JayPe # 31. If this is the kind of crap we are going to get into on this site, then we all might as well go home and surrender the white house like we seemed to have surrendered our dignity on this discussion board.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
#36:
Possibly. I have heard rumors down here that Crist is in. I have also heard that he is completely off the list. However a recent poll showed that he only had a 58% approval rating (down from 73% 2 months ago) and 47% of Floridians didn’t want him as VP (and they are not all Dem’s rest assured)
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
#38, oh, good you are in Florida……could McCain have won without his endorsement? He seems to be an effective communicator with a lot of energy……is this true to what you see down there?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Its going to be Lieberman, Graham or Ridge. McCain doesn’t like or trust a lot of people and he isn’t going to pick someone he doesn’t know well. There are no other reasons for McCain to travel with those guys.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
#39:
Crist put McCain over the top in the Florida Primary. Period. End of story. However, he is also much more liberal than John McCain. He has alienated the very base of the GOP and has put FL on the brink of bankruptcy. 1 hurricane near any big city and our state goes under (monetarily not meteorogically). If you want a candidate to please the GOP base in FL or nationwide, don’t pick Comrade Charlie.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
#41, who in Florida do people like as VP (other than Jeb)? They clearly did not embrace Huckabee or Rudy, and Romney to a lesser extent……FLA is such a funny state, Scarborough is correct, there is every part of American in FLA.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Asking what all of FL wants is a very difficult question. Florida is in essence 3 states and it depends where you ask
1.) North FL- cracker country, as Southern as AL, MS or GA
2.) Central FL- lots of Mid-Westerners, the birth-place of the FL GOP
3.) South FL- Jews, Hispanics, Elderly. Democrat bastion (except for the Cuban districts)
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
#43, ha!
So…
1.) - Huckabee?
2.) - Romney?
3.) - Crist?
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Great,
I really like Mario Diaz-Balart….any chance for VP for him?
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
#44
1.) Huck or any other Southern Governor would deliver cracker-country. It went for Bush (except for Tallahassee) by huge numbers
2.) A Catholic MidWesterner. Lots of Catholics in this area and it wouldn’t hurt with the Hispanic community (mostly Puerto Ricans).
3.) Eric Cantor I say. He can help with the Jewish vote while the local Cuban-Republicans go after their constituents. However, this is the strongest area for the Dems in FL so it might not help anyways.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
#45:
He has a tough re-election battle. We can’t afford to put in danger EVERY Republican congressional seat.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Was there like, a server crash at Kos today? A bunch of lefty trolls are here.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
When’s Kavon gonna pop out the banhammer?
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
As the regulars here will have observed, some Obama trolls are out to disrupt conversation. I sometimes read this site and also Noquarter. I observe the same phenomenon there. Gentlemen, welcome to the brave new world of Obamaphiles running amok on the web.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Alex, I suppose it’s that they like freedom of speech.
Perhaps they got tired arguing who worships Obama more on the leftist sites where Republicans aren’t allowed to comment.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
51 — Are you implying that they should be allowed to stay and disrupt conversation?
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I’m implying they’re abusing the freedom here because the netroots is an area where thought is restricted.
It’s common for people inexperienced with freedom to misuse it.
Much like how little children pee all over the bathroom when their mother doesn’t go inside and help them.
Of course a kid who can’t handle the bathroom ought to stay in diapers. Likewise these trolls don’t seem capable of reasonable discussion.
At one time we had Democrats on here that weren’t immature trolls (Tano comes to mind). If Democrats like that come here we ought to welcome them.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
#50, #51 and #52, we also do not appreciate the fact that they use our link (name) on Race42008 to go to our own sites and blogs and send us “nasty” messages.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
They have plenty of left wing blogs to spout their venom on( Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc).
Kick their butts off here!!!!!
July 4th, 2008 at 12:16 am
When Dems come on board this site, they should be respectfully argued with on points of policy. If they are abusive, they should be kicked off. If a GOPer is abusive to them, the GOPer should be kicked off.
We can tolerate free speech, and should encourage it. Abuse is unacceptable. By anyone.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Wow, I leave for a few hours and miss much of the fun. #2 and #8 and everyone else. Lets get really clear about something. If I want to accuse anyone of being racist, I’ll come right out and say it. I promise. It is a shame that in this country, we essentially cannot have a passionate but coherent and non-hysterical discussion about race and we’re all to blame. Blacks have overused the charge of racism so much as to make it meaningless for practical discourse, and whites have become equally reckless in the use of this terminology.
My opening comment wasn’t about accusing Matthew of racism. I would have just called him a racist if I thought he was. I was merely pointing out the fact, evident to me, but not to many whites for reasons I understand, that there is a distinct racial undertone to this critique of Obama as arrogant.
It is historically the case, and still is to some extent in this present day that successful, confident black men are labeled as arrogant for behavior that in a white man would not be criticized or questioned whatsoever. Its a variation on the “uppity negro” theme and its all the more relevant considering that McCain is a man who lives an extremely wealthy life style far removed from the average joe like me, whereas the Obama’s are only recently become affluent,and have nothing like the fortune of the McCains. Flowing, visionary optimistic language in a speech makes Obama “arrogant”, but when McCain does it, its merely proof of his patrician bona fides. I find the racial undertone of this criticism evident on its face. Using this smear doesn’t make you a racist, but its got a racial undertone to it, and I find republicans to be tone deaf to that.
#8, you have no knowledge whatsoever about my internal feelings or any other black person for that matter regarding “our place” in America. You’re on some damn thin ice to even make such a ridiculous statement. “Our place”? There’s that tone deafness again.
I’m fueling white anger over affirmative action? Really? I can’t speak for every other black person, but speaking for myself, I am deathly sick of this type of whining. If whites are so enraged, feel themselves so unfairly oppressed by AA, you’ve none to blame but yourselves. Blacks didn’t impose so called AA on white america, and white america frankly can end such policies whenever you like. There’s not much to wipe out. Some measly contracting preferences, higher ed admissions stuff here and there. What else is there?
But don’t kid yourself. Blacks haven’t achieved a measure of success in America because we’re getting so much unfair help. We’ve earned it and once again that tone deafness is in evidence as you suggest that Obama didn’t manage to graduate from Ivy League schools or win elections because of anything having to do with his own effort, his own work, his own skill, his own intelligence. No, the guy who has raised over a quarter of a billion and counting, beat team Clinton and currently leads the electoral math, didn’t do any of that on his own merits, but on the largess of lowered standards, and by implication, the same holds true for blacks in general. But you want to take me to task for fueling white anger and making false accusations? I didn’t accuse you or Matthew of being a racist. I’ll tell you straight out if thats what I think. But unlike all to many blacks and whites who use the word racism to identify the dynamics in various situations, but could not explain what they mean if you asked them, I don’t go recklessly throwing the term racist around. To our detriment in this country, we have lost the ability to identify racial dynamics at play in our discourse without resorting to knee jerk accusations or denials of racism and racial animus.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Isn’t Obama’s mother white?
It seems a stretch to call Obama a black man. He looks mostly white to me.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Words matter. Didn’t Obama say that?
July 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Wow, you’d think the Obamatards infesting this site would at least try to be subtle.
P.S. Insinuating that people are racist for calling out your cocky candidate for being arrogant isn’t the best way to win support.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:51 am
#58 - Obama’s mother is white. One of the things I find compelling about Obama (there aren’t many, I assure you) is how his identity fits within American culture. His mother was white, his father black, but not “African-American” in the sense that we typically understand it; that is, as a descendant of American slaves. I saw a black sociologist give an interview about a year ago and posit that Obama doesn’t share “the American black experience,” which is largely true. However, I think that gives him a unique, somewhat detached vantage point to view race relations.
And as to your point about Obama not being a black man… well, there’s a historical tendency in this country to view ANYONE with African blood as African-American. During Jim Crow days, the law used a “one-drop” test with regard to identifying ethnicity. You’ll frequently hear someone like Halle Berry, who’s mother is white, referred to as “an African-American actress.” I’m largely inclined to simply respect a person’s wishes with regard to nomenclature. I think it’s perfectly legitimate for someone who’s half black to identify themselves as African-American.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:54 am
#60 - I think Aaron has argued pretty clearly that he wasn’t calling anyone a racist. You don’t have to be too intellectually sophisticated to understand that there’s a difference between calling someone racist and saying that an argument has a racial undertone. I mean, I find Obama arrogant, but don’t feel that Aaron’s called me a racist. I think he’s just urging us to carefully consider how our words come across. It’s fine to disagree with him.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:12 am
57. Aaron wrote: “Flowing, visionary optimistic language in a speech makes Obama “arrogant”, but when McCain does it, its merely proof of his patrician bona fides. I find the racial undertone of this criticism evident on its face.”
Aaron, how do you explain Obama’s recent use of the not-so-subtle morphing of the presidential seal? That had arrogance written all over it. Oh no!!! I dared to criticize Obama — I must be a racist!
July 4th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Win M,
Thank you for being honest. I certainly don’t believe the portrayal of Obama as elitist or arrogant to be “racist” but like you say there can be racial undertones. I say, c’est la vie.
Otoh, to say Obama got the nominaton because of affirmative action, as Kristofer and Doug Forrester have said, is both wrong and racist. I find that type of opposition to Obama interesting because it reveals that Kristofer and Forrester have personal problems when confronted with a person of color who they know is smarter and more successful than themslves. The reflex answer they have programmed themselves to believe is, “that black got ahead of me because of affirmative action.” I bet if they played golf they would say the same about Tiger Woods. Its sad because their children will grow up with that same twisted perception and be despised by more intelligent people.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:49 am
And, BTW, Matthew Miller is a person of color even though he too experiences a certain personal disquiet comparing himself to the obviously intellectually superior Obama. There have always been blacks like Miller whose personal jealousies wouldn’t allow them to celebrate the success of a fellow person of color. So he tries to outdue even his white friends in tearing down someone trying to lift his race up (and I might add that whites secretly laugh at him because they better understand Obama’s importance and meaning).
July 4th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Aias,
If you say so. Barack Obama is a perfectly intelligent man and has had a number of impressive successes (Harvard Law Review Editor stands out). And I envy him for that, in the same way I envy anyone with tremendous successes. But, I’m fairly secure in my intellectual accomplishments. I have no problem celebrating Bobby Jindal’s amazing accomplishments (which surpass Obama’s by almost any measurement). Or Colin Powell’s. Or Condi Rice’s. To the extent that Obama’s race influence me at all, it’s in connection with his actions in the Jeremiah Wright saga. I have a black father and a white mother, like Obama. I can’t begin imagine staying at a church that essentially blamed my mother for the plight of blacks. We didn’t visit either side of my parents family until I was like 4 or 5, because we don’t tolerate that crap in my family; racism is unacceptable. Hanging around with blatant racists is unacceptable. Listening to them, because you enjoy the racist “community” or because you want a power base is unacceptable. And Barack Obama should understand that better then anyone: the fact that he doesn’t, or that he understands, but doesn’t care, because attending the church furthered his ambitions, frightens me. It’s the mark of either a man without character, or a man without awareness of any sort.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Matthew,
But you show ignorance by trying to boil Obama’s life and career down to where he went to church and what someone there said. That strikes me as quite buffoonish. I grew up catholic and the catholic church has a history of racism, sexism and anti-semitism (some of which it still practices). The church also continues to struggle against sexual abuse by its priests. Have you blamed a single catholic politician for staying in a church with such sins? Where is the intellectual honesty?
As for racists, Bill Buckley was a well-known racist and the GOP worships him. Have you taken him or any of his followers to task? No you haven’t, but you want to throw around the racist tag to somehow justify your failure to reason.
I can tell you are a young man who wishes to be an intellectual. Perhaps you see trashing a fellow person of color as your ticket to acceptance by whites. But no one really likes a self-hater, or worse, a traitor. Whites will think you a fool.
That does not mean you have to embrace Obama or his policies. But he deserves your respect just as McCain deserves the respect of those who disagree with him. And you should be fighting against not spreading rumor and innuendo if you are confident that your ideas are better. That is the proof of true intellectualism.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:05 am
#63. I thought the presidential seal gaffe was just stupid. If you start with the position that Obama is an arrogant, elitist guy, then that particular gaffe is just further evidence for you. I just found it to be plain stupid. Sometimes they just do something stupid, and that was stupid. The campaign brand was fine, I don’t even know what they needed something different for and on top of all that, as branding imagery, it was boring and doofus looking.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Aias,
“But you show ignorance by trying to boil Obama’s life and career down to where he went to church and what someone there said. That strikes me as quite buffoonish. I grew up catholic and the catholic church has a history of racism, sexism and anti-semitism (some of which it still practices). The church also continues to struggle against sexual abuse by its priests. Have you blamed a single catholic politician for staying in a church with such sins? Where is the intellectual honesty?”
I would blame any Catholic politician who attended a parish with an openly racist, anti-American pastor. Point out such a politician, and I’ll blame him post-haste. But, you’re conflating a hierarchical church, where certain doctrines are, in some respects, unique, with an individual church. If I accept transubstantiation, for whatever reason, there’s really only one game in town. I can pick and choose a parish and a pastor that are to my liking, but I can’t reasonably be held accountable for every teaching of the broader church. In what way, is this applicable, to the situation Obama found himself in? Is there something unique to Trinity Church? Some doctrinal point, that Obama absolutely insisted upon, and which wasn’t offered at less divisive churches? I’m at a loss.
“As for racists, Bill Buckley was a well-known racist and the GOP worships him. Have you taken him or any of his followers to task? No you haven’t, but you want to throw around the racist tag to somehow justify your failure to reason.”
If Buckley was a racist, I haven’t seen any signs of it (though, he admittedly opposed federal intervention in segregation for a time, ala Barry Goldwater). But, if I’m wrong, I’m happy to condemn those sentiments.
“I can tell you are a young man who wishes to be an intellectual. Perhaps you see trashing a fellow person of color as your ticket to acceptance by whites. But no one really likes a self-hater, or worse, a traitor. Whites will think you a fool.”
Liberals are fascinating creatures. If I dislike Obama as black, if I refuse to respect him, it MUST be because I hate myself and want to impress whites. Also, I’m pretending to be an intellectual. That’s curious, don’t you think? That you assume I’m pretending? I detect a racist subtext…
“That does not mean you have to embrace Obama or his policies. But he deserves your respect just as McCain deserves the respect of those who disagree with him. And you should be fighting against not spreading rumor and innuendo if you are confident that your ideas are better. That is the proof of true intellectualism.”
Wait….Obama might not have attended Trinity United? I’m just spreading false rumors here, in an attempt to convince myself that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve respect?
July 4th, 2008 at 8:15 am
#67 Aias, I agree with your point as to the issue of intellectual honesty and the vast majority of the argument that says Obama is racist and so on suffers on that particular point. I think you’re pushing it a tad to suggest Matthew is practicing self hatred because he commits the common error of intellectual dishonesty. Thats a a leap considering all you have to work with is his posts.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:49 am
#66 - I’m not sure calling the people of Trinity church a bunch of blatant racists is really supported on the evidence or even explanatory of whats happening there. Being harshly critical of white people does not = being racist though it may have a racial undertone or context, just like calling Obama arrogant does not = being racist, but may very well have racial undertones or context. This is a good example of what frustrates me about the way the terms “racist” and “racism” have been overused as to be nearly meaningless or useful for a discourse. We apply the same terms to wildly disparate phenomena, from the clear hatred involved in a lynching to the ineffective complaints and blaming on display in the political rhetoric of Trinity’s leadership. Look at the first “chickens home to roost” clips of Wright that were played endlessly. His statements were harshly critical of US foreign policy, but how one applied the term racism to it, I don’t get. People say racism, and I’m like, can you define terms here, because we use this terminology in an extremely imprecise, indiscriminate way. Look at this thread. Its no wonder we can’t have a real discussion about race in America, from the get go, we are not even on the same page using the exact same words.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
#67, Aias Says:
Could you please refrain from calling me a racist on this site?
Just because I am opposed to affirmative action, should not lead you to accuse me of being racist.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Matthew,
So one man’s thoughts are worse than an entire institution that preaches and spreads a doctrine of bigotry if not hate? Does that actually make sense to you?
After Buckley’s passing his racism was addressed a little on a Charlie Rose show, but Rose and his guests did a disservice by explaining it away by “his southern upbringing.” It went beyond opposition to civil rights.
I am pretty far from liberal, but I try hard to be honest. I also study human behavior so my commentary is based on observation not ideology. So when someone describes an entire church and congregation as racist, which is absurd on its face, logic requires that the fault lie in that person and in their own identity crisis. Just as the fault was Rev. Wright’s for his comments, not his church or his congregation. To blame Obama is to engage in groupthink.
Aaron,
You would be surprised what one can learn solely from what one writes.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“You would be surprised what one can learn solely from what one writes.”
Perhaps. I don’t generally consider commentary on the inner life of a person of color by people who aren’t as particular genuine or informed. Commentary about Barack’s black identity in this thread for example, simply betrays a poor understanding of complex racial dynamics in the culture. Matthew’s a conservative and you’re sorta suggesting he’s an Oreo (very old slang, I may be dating myself). As a black conservative with a mother in law who terms me “the whitest black man she knows” I’ve faced my own share of this kind of insinuation and my mother in law, though entirely wrong, I can credit as better qualified to make such a statement than I would a white person about someone who is multi-racial in heritage, though phenotypically black in appearance. I guess I’m saying I don’t think you have the cultural bona fides to pass that kind of judgment on Matthew. I could be wrong, I don’t know you, and I don’t know Matt. So I’ll admit its the position of bias I start from.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:51 am
#74 That is pure bull. What about FBI profilers? Are you saying they have to be the race of the person they are examining to get it right? I am not making a racist comment saying I think you are smoking crack (it would be racist if I said you were a crack baby and that is how you got hooked).
July 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Did you see the cross in back of Obama on this clip? Shameless.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Otoh, to say Obama got the nominaton because of affirmative action, as Kristofer and Doug Forrester have said, is both wrong and racist. I find that type of opposition to Obama interesting because it reveals that Kristofer and Forrester have personal problems when confronted with a person of color who they know is smarter and more successful than themslves.
Many black and white Democrats acknowledge that Obama has benefited from people who want to vote for a candidate who looks black. To them it’s a way of fighting racism or of fighting their own guilt. I don’t believe a man’s race matters for anything at any time.
I grew up remembering the kids who’d look at my mother and say things. How the other people in the supermarket would be so careful not to look at her until her back was turned. Being a small kid with an Iranian mother in small town America doesn’t endear you to American racism. If Democrats had nominated Charlie Rangel or Deval Patrick it would have been a bit different. Instead they pick a guy who’s has no leadership experience and little experience in Washington. That seems a little like tokenism to me. Of course Jimmy Carter was the same sort of character. Perhaps it’s just foolishness on the part of Democrats.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
An essential read…
A Man of Seasonal Principles
by Charles Krauthammer
You’ll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he’d worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses — hence, the Democratic nomination — Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he’s running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country ’tis of thee.
In last week’s column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama’s brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles — on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.
Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November — i.e., the primary season — statement “inartful.” Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary — “Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial.”
Obama’s seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What’s left?
Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.
Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama’s cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.
The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his “original position” on withdrawal has always been that “we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.” And that “when I go to Iraq . . . I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
He hasn’t even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that’s left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.
Done.
And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year’s most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.
Obama’s strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these — and, most important, his war-losing Iraq policy — out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.
After all, that’s how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama — her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health-care universality became almost comical — making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.
As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma — he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy — will carry him to the White House.
Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?
I have no idea. Do you? Does he?