Obama Cries Wolf on Race
There is no disputing that Obama's skin color
has been a political boon for him to date
And the suggestion that saying so aloud
betrays racial animus implies that only he is allowed
to discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy
It's Obama Who Plays the Race Card
Is it just us, or does Barack Obama seem a mite too quick to play the race card when facing criticism from political opponents?
In recent days, the Obama camp has been demanding an apology from Geraldine Ferraro, the former Vice Presidential candidate and current Hillary Clinton supporter who last week let slip that:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself.
There is no disputing that Obama's skin color has been a political boon for him to date. And the suggestion that saying so aloud betrays racial animus implies that only the Illinois Senator can discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy.
Back in January, the Obama campaign was on similarly shaky ground when it accused Mrs. Clinton of belittling Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that "it took a President" to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mrs. Clinton was stating a fact, not slighting King, and the context in which she uttered the statement made that perfectly clear.
We're not suggesting that the Obama campaign has never been justified in crying foul over racially tinged remarks out of the Clinton camp.
When Bill Clinton gratuitously invoked Jesse Jackson after Mr. Obama won the South Carolina primary, he was clearly trying to define the Senator's victory in narrowly racial terms.
But for all of Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric about the nation's need for a post-racial politics that "brings the American people together," his campaign at times has seemed overly sensitive about race.
It also seems to want it both ways. Mr. Obama claims that his brand of politics transcends race, but at the same time he's using race as a shield to shut down important and legitimate arguments.
Already, prominent Obama sympathizers, such as Harvard's Orlando Patterson, are detecting racial overtones where none exist.
In a New York Times op-ed this week, Mr. Patterson said a Clinton political ad designed to question Mr. Obama's readiness as Commander in Chief contained a "racist sub-message" because none of the people depicted in the TV spot are black.
"Counting people of color in an ad about national security is hardly consistent with the Obama theme that "race doesn't matter."
We suppose some of the current back and forth is due to the diversity preoccupations of Democrats. But it bodes ill for an honest fall campaign if Obama and his allies are going to play the race card to blunt any criticism.
A campaign in which John McCain couldn't question Mr. Obama's policies, experience and mettle without being called a racist is not what the country needs. Or wants.
Democrats have repeatedly touted the diversity of their party's White House hopefuls. And it is true that a Clinton or Obama Presidency would make gender or racial history.
Americans of all backgrounds can take satisfaction in watching the country field its first black Presidential candidate with a chance to win. But voters also want their would-be Presidents properly vetted, by the media and by each other.
To that end Obama would do better to focus more on answering his political critics with specifics and less on questioning their motives by crying wolf on race.
Self-Righteous Obama Worshippers
The Monster and Archie Bunker gaffes form a pair of bookends to something that has become an increasing irritant to rank and file Dem voters - the derisive attitude shown towards people who are not "on the bandwagon."
If someone does not support Obama, the fault lies with them, not with the candidate, or that is the message coming through loud and clear to the Reagan Democrats.
It fits in with the not very subtle accusations of racism against core Hillary supporters; they don't really like her, but are voting their deep, secret racist impulses.
This actually started in Iowa with the extravagant praise of whites who voted Obama, explicitly noting that they weren't falling for racist BS, which immediately cast doubt on whites who didn't vote Obama.
It became the dominant meme for a while in New Hampshire to try to explain away Obama's loss, and then went mainstream for a few weeks, when Obama had to admit that his campaign was deliberately trying to catapult the racist propaganda.
The Archie Bunker reference is yet another attempt to call Hillary supporters racists.
This comes across badly in two ways. First, the "Archie Bunker" reference insults voters directly.
People who might grudgingly allow that HRC or people campaigning for her made remarks that someone might be able to construe as possibly being racist won't accept that accusation made against themselves.
Second, and this is more about the attacks on HRC herself, they come across as simply rude, the mark of people who don't respect others.
The monster comment went down sideways with many, many voters. As I have said and as has been said by a number of other bloggers, Hillary's support is strong and diverse, and they feel insulted on her behalf over such comments.
Especially after the months of battering she has received, especially from a candidate who markets himself as a unifier, a nice guy, a conciliator, etc. He undermines the image of himself he has been projecting, and this damages his legitimacy.
What all of this points to is one of the deep, negative themes that has been present in his campaign from the beginning, that people who do not support him are not legitimate voters and their opinions should count for nothing.
People who vote for Hillary are Archie Bunkers, "low information" people who vote for "monsters" and who need to be shoved around, harangued, locked out of polling places.
They will simply fall into line after he is nominated and support him, of course, but his high-minded followers cannot be asked to stoop to support anyone else.
Hillary supporters are accused of being racists, of being war-mongers, of not understanding just what a heinous human being she really is, of being stupid, old, uneducated yahoo bitches.
Their dissenting opinions about key events and policy decisions (what these acts and policies mean, how they relate to each other, how important they are on their own and in relation to other acts and policies) are scorned and attacked.
The root cause of Obama's loss of electoral legitimacy is his campaign's refusal to accept that he might, very legitimately, not be the nominee.