 Login
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Obama is the One that made race the issue.
 uh, so what? Race is an
uh, so what? Race is an issue. It's not THE issue, right wing nationalists and politicized religious fanatics are the core issue, war mongering neocons are the issue... as well as dirty politics and slander by the Republican base, but how in the hell could a black presidential candidate avoid the discussion of race? It would be absurd to ignore racism in the United States, it is a defining historical fact of life and politics there. I don't see how you can argue that this fact is a "fatal mistake that will hand the Republicans a victory."
Brendan,
You are right.
Brendan, You are right. Race is an issue automatically when you are black, but, Obama didn't need to exploit it. He played identity politics and instilled visions of marches, fire hoses, police dogs, and baton beatings over and over. He repeatedly emphasized "and blacks died." I live in Tennessee - the South. Harold Ford, Jr., a black man ran for Senate. I supported him. He should have won. But, regardless of the polls, when the voters were alone in that booth, they just couldn't pull the lever for what I think was the much better candidate. Obama went out of his to play on race. He is getting 95% of the black vote. However, the blacks only make up 12% of the voters. If the vote is based on race, as Obama has made it, Obama looses.
D.L.Y.
Obama has not
D.L.Y. Obama has not exploited race that I can see, or from what I have read. Please point it out if you can. There is, however, a genuine issue with those who would attack Obama for reason's of race and bigotry. Being from Tennessee you may have some direct knowledge of the type of bigot I am talking about and their ability to spuriously inject doubt about Obama into the mainstream. The suggestion that Obama is "playing the race card" seems to be code for something much more sinister in the US. I would suggest that comments like yours are unfounded (feel free to prove otherwise with evidence of course) and part of a chorus that is really stating a general discomfort in certain circles with a black president. Being from Tennessee you may be hearing that chorus more-so than in other states and feeling it has some merit; it doesn't. 
Brendan,
I agree race is
Brendan, I agree race is an issue, it's not the core issue. While it will shape the debate, it will not define it as a core issue. Not unexpectedly, you and I differ on the core issues. You list issues that are relevant only to the truly politically involved Leftist. The election will be decided by independents who are concerned with their jobs, hanging on to their mortgages, and putting their kids through school. The deciding issues will be economics and national security. If the Republicans win in the fall, it will be because the Left focuses on your issues instead of mine. So....please, carry on.
I agree that the economy and
I agree that the economy and security are core issues, but I can link the bad economy and some security issues directly to Bushes tenure in office. (If you can't let me know, but I hate to dwell on the self evident) If the Republican candidate is offering more of the same on the economic front (bush tax cuts for instance) and more of the same on the security front (lack of diplomacy and aggressive militarism), then you should feel comfortable in considering the Democratic alternative to that. More of the same just will not do. Don't make us invade Mike, we like you Americans, but there are limits.
Iron Mike,
It is not the
Iron Mike, It is not the Leftist that are making race the issue. I is the far right reacting to it. Yes, the economy, etc is the issue, but, that comes into play after one accepts the character of a candidate. If the candidate is not percieved as honest, etc. the position on the issues matters less. I like McCain. But, I still have questions. I think Obama puts on a good show,but, all that glitters isn't gold.
D. Lindley:
Can you cite
D. Lindley: Can you cite any particular instances of O "exploiting" race, or "playing" identity politics? From what I hear, the most dramatic pronouncement on race in this campaign was Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech in Philadelphia, readily available on YouTube. Fair-minded listeners, even many on the right, found that speech to be the single most honest and forthright discussion of race in the US we've had in more than 40 years, roughly since the assassination of M.L. King. It's worth watching. Contrary to what some (you know who you are) will say, there's nothing messianic about the speech. It's both hard-headed and hopeful--not an easy mix. We could do worse than aiming for that bar ourselves.
If you read the post, it is
If you read the post, it is very specific. Repeatedly saying "and blacks died," "you know how they are," the "okie-dokie," the "bamboozle," reference over and over to "slavery," "Lincoln," and the 60s "marches," etc etc - and, all the threats others made that he encouraged through silent ratification. It that isn't identity politics, then what is? How specific can I get? Obviously, you either haven't read the post or just disregard hard facts.
Lindsay is right: Obama
Lindsay is right: Obama has skilfully played the 'race card', but as IM points out was this wise ? Looking at the race from the UK it seems that the American people are not being presented with brilliant choice. Obama is really a very light-weight figure. As IM points out he has less than 150 days in the Senate. His record there is hardly glittering even being charitable. Some have been seduced by a few fine words, but Obama's whole campaign seems to have little substance and much hot air. There is another thought. It is in Hilary Clinton's interest for Obama to lose, for if he wins he will probably do two terms. McCain is unlikely to do two terms. Hilary would have her last chance in 2012. Just a thought.
Quote:
Repeatedly saying
[quote]
Repeatedly saying "and blacks died," "you know how they It that isn't identity politics, then what is? [/quote] Saying "bamboozle" or "okie-dokie" is identity politics? Invoking Lincoln is "playing the race card"? Being endorsed by Oprah is "threatening" the party? Sounds like someone's got a hyperactive imagination. Go after Jeremiah Wright if you want to, but Oprah Winfrey is about as mainstream a figure as there is in the US, as little about racial identity as Michael Jordan. Why this bizarre need to find Hidden Code when Barack Hussein is up front about his history? when he makes a point of being multi-racial? When Jesse Jackson says he wants "to cut his nuts off" because he talks down to black men? As for Owly's point about being "light weight"--pure snobbery. Bush proved (twice!) that you don't have to be better qualified to be elected President, just better organized. Anyone who could take on the Clinton machine and beat it has a good, strong team behind him--not to mention the fundraising. Credit where credit is due.
Quote:
Repeatedly saying
Hobbes, I didn’t' go after Oprah, I just point out her contributions to making race an issue. In her speech on December where she declared Obama "the one" she also said in effect it is their time and they will not get to the back of the bus. This type of talk is deliberately incendiary. Moreover, her endorsement was coordinated with here release of the film she produced titled "The Debaters" (racial charged film). My point is that Obama played the race card as his sword and as his sheild. He not Clinton. Not anyone else. So it is 'snobbery' to point
So it is 'snobbery' to point out Obama's lack of experience in office ?? Obama is bidding to be President of the United States, not president of the local baseball club. It is a legitimate question to ask - 'Just WHAT has this man done ?' The answer is sod all. The arrogant and impertinent dismissal of anyone who questions is frankly pathetic. I have seen many people who were said to bring 'hope' and all the other buzz words, but whose reality has been lacking. Obama has created a persona which the media have swallowed hook, line and sinker. But where is the reality ? What has this man achieved ? Where is the beef in the sandwich in other words ? I like politicans who actually believe in something. In the UK Tony Benn is a case in point, and so is Lady Thatcher. We have recently had an example of a man who was all things to all men and believed in nothing say the next headline, the next poll or the next focus group. My concern is that Obama may be too much like Tony Blair. He proved to be a disaster.
Sorry, Owly, but calling
Sorry, Owly, but calling someone "a very light-weight figure" doesn't count as a question, grammatically or in my book. Perhaps you should have said "when the White House phone rings at 3:00 a.m...."--which is the line Hillary Clinton tried to use. Experience and achievement count for something, but, as Plato lamented, democracy doesn't mean "rule of the best. " True confession: I voted for Clinton in the primary, thinking she would make the better president. I lost respect for her when she adopted TOM McCain's dumb-as-dirt proposal for a gas-tax holiday. In the end, Obama proved to be the better campaigner, a quick study and better as the weeks wore on. You ask: "What has this man achieved?" Answer: he's won the Democratic party nomination, which no doubt you could do in your sleep but which does demand a certain amount of political judgment and strategic organization. Does Obama's lack of experience worry me? Yes: he's younger than I am. Is he preferable to TOM? Unquestionably--for reasons I'd be happy to enumerate. Is either of them up to the job of being POTUS? we'll find out. But we've had Pinocchio in office for the past eight years, so the bar is set pretty low.
As for believing in something, I believe I'll have another beer
A civil servant once said to
A civil servant once said to Tony Blair 'the trouble is you have never managed anything'. It was a statement of fact, and actually pinpointed one of his basic weaknesses. Blairs reply was 'oh yes I have: I've managed the Labour Party'. Obama is out of the same mould. I feel sorry for you.
Thanks, Owly. I've gotten
Thanks, Owly. I've gotten tired of feeling sorry for myself, so it's nice to have some help, for a change. When it comes to management, neither of our candidates has serious credentials, which is why both of them have been looking at sitting governors as potential running-mates. I'd like to hear more about what you think Blair mismanaged (besides allying himself with our president in Iraq); he did manage to stay in office almost as long as Mrs. Thatcher--no mean feat.
Just look at Blair's record:
Just look at Blair's record: he was a disaster. He messed up everything he touched. And remember he had the largest majority I can ever remember - not once but a huge majority three times - and he could have done so much. He didn't reform the public services - the NHS and Education are long overdue - and he never went near Welfare reform. When history comes to look at the Blair years he will be regarded as a failure. His monument will be a very unpopular war. Weighed in the balance he is found wanting: no match for Lady Thatcher. A great pity.
Quote: And remember he had
[quote] And remember he had the largest majority I can ever remember - not once You'll have to help me out with Blair's record. What did he mess up? Do you fault him for what he did? or what, with his huge majorities, he failed to do? Would you have liked the sorts of reforms the Labor Party would have supported? I don't pretend to understand your political system, but why--if everyone hated Blair--was he able to command such large majorities?
Aside from War and
Aside from War and gerrymandering the constitution he did nothing - that's the point. The large majorities came about for two reasons -: First the system favoured Labour. It takes approx. two thirds of the votes to elect a Labour MP as a Tory. Labour lost the popular vote in England but still ended up with a majority of MP's. This bias has been partly addressed by the recent changes in boundaries, but the bias is still there. Second, the press (particularly the broadcast media) had turned on the Tories and the public had come to hate them. You have a similar situation in the US now with the Republican Party. But today the Tories has effectively detoxified the brand, as they say in marketing. The tables have turned. The public seem to me to hate Labour with a passion. They see them as corrupt - correctly as it happens - dishonest and dishonourable. Usually you find there is a 'tipping' point. With Labour this was the 'election that never was' and, perhaps the icing on the cake, the 10p tax fiasco. Brown was the author of both these events. His standing in the polls changed almost overnight and has gone south ever since. Serves him right. I think it is interesting to compare your political scene with ours. George Bush is basically history, but the Republicans are very unpopular. Here Gordon Brown is equally unpopular and Labour's standing in the polls is around 25%. The Tories are on 44%. A crushing defeat seems to be in the offing. The Republicans are of the right, Labour of the left. What the public have decided is enough of the incumbents. Time for a change. A further interesting point. Beware huge majorities. Tony Blair never achieved the number of votes John Major received in 1992. He was never as popular as he appeared.
Hobbes asked:
Quote:You'll
Hobbes asked:
Blair didn't mess up. He continued with Thatcher's policies and received a massive sinecure from JP Morgan( I would of course not dare to suggest that this was payment for putting US interests before British ones.) I think he probably considers that to be a result.
His huge majorities had two causes. Firstly the the Tories were so unpopular in 1997 that a hamster with learning difficulties would have beaten them. Secondly the British "first past the post" system causes strange distortions in electoral results. Because the Tory vote was more evenly distributed they were able to command a small lead in seats even though they had a minority of the overall vote. This downside of this even distribution was that there were a lot of seats with slim majorities. As a result, the swing in seats was far greater than the swing in votes.
Despite having deeply unpopular right wing policies like the war in Iraq and health service privatisation, Labour survived in office because the memory of the Tories was still fresh. It is fading now and the old political see-saw has returned. I doubt it will make much difference. Obama is the One that made
One more point. The Obama campaign has conducted a campaign of threat, intimidation, and misconduct which included unethical, if not, illegal conduct in order to win the Democratic Primary. Now Obama and his are applying the craft to the general election. Death and political threats were made to the Democratic Party, to superdelegates, to members of Congress, and arguably to America and its system of democracy. From Congresswoman Stephanie Tubb Jones and Tavis Smiley to Missouri and ACORN. As one blogger put it: “While widely ignored by the mainstream media, the implications here are nothing short of momentous. The very prospect of physical intimidation as a means of garnering political compliance from Americans awakens frightening images of the thuggish antics of one William M "Boss" Tweed.” Obama is the One that made
As one blogger put it... I suppose we'll have to tolerate these sort of things until November. D. Lindley,
Going back to
D. Lindley, Going back to one of your earlier comments... I'm also from Tennessee, and I can hardly believe anyone would admit to voting for any of the Fords. What a corrupt, drunken, bunch of undertakers that genetic strain has produced. What's-her-face is too drunk to sit on her barstool during legislative lunch hours. John is in the Federal pen for corruption. His wife crashes her car through the front door of his girlfriend's house, on purpose. They shoot at truckers driving down I-40. That entire family is funnier than anything produced in Hollywood over the past two decades. Obama is the One that made
Brendan, I know it's old, but I couldn't help noticing this: If you really wanted to play that game, I could link those same issues, and probably a few others, back to the Clinton administration. In fact one could argue fairly credibly that the entire Bush administration has been little more than an ineffective attempt to clean up the various problems that Mr. Bill so adroitly kicked down the road. What would be the point though? Seems to me we should be talking less about who made the mess and more about how to clean it up...
Obama is the One that made
Steven, There are many people in the US who are responsible for the current mess. Bush had a better opportunity to fix some of them but the choices required would have been contrary to his 'values' as he might put it. Regulation is an important role of government and now everyone can see that there is a need for it in the market. In the US people have been bombarded with messages that it is always a bad thing to my amazement. I am quite confident that in 18 months things will look very different and that appropriate laws will prevent foolish, short term logic in the markets. Obama is the One that made
There was no shortage of regulation, and the notion that the financial industry was unregulated is factually insupportable. The regulation was simply ineffective, and largely backward looking: the regulatory emphasis during Bush's first term in particular was all on avoiding a repeat of the equity bubble, a crisis that had already passed. of course the lending industry was regulated, if you look up SEC filings for lending businesses from 2003-2004 you will find pages upon pages summarizing the mass of regulations these businesses have to manage. The problem was not a lack of regulation, it was the structural inability of regulators to respond to rapidly changing circumstances (this did not start with Bush, we saw the same inability in Clinton's administration) and the ease with which regulations can be circumvented in the presence of an overwhelming incentive toward risky behaviour. I suspect that the next 18 months will se a great surge in laws and regulations aimed at preventing a repeat of this crisis, many of which will be obsolete before they are passed. You may find it more difficult than you think to legislate behaviour. Sometimes sound management of incentives will accomplish more than regulation, and the assumption that this crisis was caused by deregulation or regulatory deficit does not stand up very well to close examination (though many find it ideologically satisfying).
Obama is the One that made
This is a very broad issue to discuss in the "Obama is the One that made race the issue" thread. I do disagree with what you say however, with the exception of the fact that wrong and outdated regulations certainly pose an unnecessary burden on productive behavior. Otherwise, what you say is simply wishful thinking. You don't need to look at very many other domestic banking systems to see alternatives where sub-prime is simply not an uninsured market. We have the CMHC here and no bank will accept you without 25% down without paying for it. It's looking great right now! The exposure banks outside the US have is limited to re-bundled debt from Wall Street. These assholes on Wall Street should have been prevented from bundling debt into incomprehensible investment packages that had returns predicated on a predicted real estate bubble. This could only have been avoided by the government regulating the credit market properly. Your point made previously about interest rates being too low for too long I find convincing however. It fed an unrealistic housing boom and wall mart like credit strategies from institutions. |
|
|
Obama is the One that made race the issue.
By D. Lindley Young
In a year when some would say that no Democratic candidate for President could lose, Obama may have made a fatal mistake that will hand the Republicans a victory. He made race the issue. No secret campaign memo is necessary to prove that Obama played the race card.
On June 20th Obama made race an issue saying, “Did I mention he’s black.” Just last week Obama said three times in one day that he would not look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills." These recent comments by Obama are just the tip of the iceberg.
From day one Barrack Obama made race an issue and has played identity politics to the hilt all the way.
Obama chose a date - on or about Abraham Lincoln’s birthday - to announce his run for president. He chose Springfield, Illinois – a home of Lincoln – as the place to announce. He even chose the very courthouse steps to make the announcement that Lincoln announced his run for the presidency. And, he spoke of Abraham Lincoln and slavery in his announcement speech.
His stump speech always mentioned Abraham Lincoln and slavery at least through the South Carolina primary. And, under a category called “hope” he made sure to revive the images of police beatings, the flailing batons and of the vicious dogs being unleashed upon blacks.
He rarely, if ever, missed the opportunity to add “and blacks died.” He said “and blacks died,” “and blacks died,” “and blacks died,” over and over again. Why?
On the day of the South Carolina primary Obama, speaking before a primarily black audience, said, “You know how they are. The ole okie-dokie. The bamboozle.” Spike Lee made clear in the movie Malcolm X that when Malcolm X said something similar that he was talking about “white” people. No opportunity to exploit race was missed. In December 2007, when Ophra Winfrey was anointing Obama as "the one, her production of the Debaters was released to anger blacks about how whites wouldn't recognize the black debating team as national champions even though they were the best in the nation.
Carefully scripted identity politics worked through the Democratic primaries and threats and intimidation may have been a factor in the ultimate result.Donna Brazille (John Kerry’s campaign manager) threatened to leave the Democratic Party; Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina (third ranking democrat in Congress) threatened “irreparable” damage to the Democratic Party; Color of Change (boasting 400,000 black membership) made its threats; Al Sharpen threaten marches (code for riots); and certain super delegates like Diane Watson (a black Congresswoman from Los Angeles), among others, were threatened.
Obama never objected or even once said stop threatening his party; stop threatening America. He just rode the wave he set in motion and pretended it was others creating it.
D. Lindley Young