home

That Crazy Lanny Davis?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

That Crazy Lanny Davis:

Hillary supporter Lanny Davis added a new dimension to the Hillary camp's bash-the-press-for-being-soft-on-Obama strategy, asserting on Morning Joe that "it's very hard to criticize Senator Obama without being accused of playing the race card"...

Greg Sargent thought that was over the top. I would have thought so too. But then I read this from Attaturk:

And now Gail Collins comes forward today and says:

...people here worry that Barack Obama is getting show-offy

I believe the word all of you are thinking, but not typing, is...

U-P-P-I-T-Y

Let's just get it out in the open and call it for the racist bullcrap it is.

As I card carrying member of the PC police, I would urge that Gail Collins take care with her words in general. But Attaturk just called her a racist. I wonder what Hilzoy and John Cole think about that?

< Thursday Funnies and Open Thread | Site Update >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is a problem (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    Sometimes it seems like you can't offer any criticism of Obama without being accused of "coded" language where your real intent is to label him uppity, lazy, or whatever other trope you like.  It's kind of like how you can't make any argument about, say, the political influence of AIPAC without someone claiming that you're making the antisemitic argument that Jews control the world.

    Sometimes Obama really does come across as arrogant to me.  Am I truly not allowed to say that?  I'm a liberal who hangs out with liberals, so this sort of PC absurdity kind of rolls off my back by now.  But I don't think it plays well with the electorate at large.  This style of politics where people run around claiming that terms like "fairy tale" are subtly racist is not going to play in Peoria.  By and large, people are not going to be up for spending the next four years embroiled in one long debate over whether such-and-such criticism of President Obama was racist.  The argument works in the Democratic primary, apparently, but it won't go any further, and people need to drop it.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    You're not allowed to say that.

    The distinction I make is probably still even not expansive as some.

    Nappy headed hoes is racist.

    If I say:  "_____ is a nappy headed hoe," then you can be absolutely sure I'm talking about a black person and that I made a racist comment.   That is why Imus had to go.

    If I say:  "_____ was lynched, he was led through the crowd blindfolded and hanged" then there is no absolute certainty that I am talking about a black person.  I could be talking about Saddam Hussein.

    If I say: "_____ has a history of drug use that might come up during the general election," then there is no absolute certainty that I am talking about a black person.

    I think people would have some problems here, and I respect that.

    Obviously one can add more context to all the situations, and if we knew that it was Bill O'Reilly talking about Michelle Obama being lynched by the media, then we can conclude, based on his past history of using hate speech code words to his listeners, that he's making a racist statement there, then fine.

    But, really the point is, white people have to be extremely careful about what they say about black people cause the willingness of folks to cast it, whatever it is, as racist, and the stickiness of that charge, makes any point one has to make fit snugly into the law of diminishing returns.

    The risk far outweighs any benefit, and that applies to compliments as well.

    Just best to keep your mouth shut altogether.

    Let be.


    Parent

    Let's be clear (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    I, as a good liberal, have no problem with the idea that I need to watch how I phrase things.  Most people are not OK with that, and they feel like as long as they have no racist intent, people shouldn't be jumping all over them accusing them of things.  This is why there's an anti-PC backlash.  Most people will not play by the rules that I voluntarily subject myself to.

    More to the point, I thought I was joking when I asked if I'm not allowed to say that Obama strikes me as arrogant.  Since apparently I'm actually not allowed, I have to ask, is there a permissible way that I can convey that impression without being accused of trafficking in racist code?

    Parent

    Oh crap (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    I was kind of joking by the "No" answer.

    The rest of my "screed" I thought was pretty insightful.

    Should have put a snark tag on the "No" answer.

    The fact is, people are going to continue to make observations about people of another race.

    Parent

    TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#102)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:57:29 PM EST
    ******************
    Don't mind me, I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we logout, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.

    Parent

    i think obama is arrogant! (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:40:24 AM EST
    that isn't racist, it is an accurate statement of my opinion. i won't be bound by rules that won't allow me to state my opinion. i'll be polite and not use offensive words like imus. however, i expect to be treated with respect in my choice of typically used words in the english language. i won't be spending my time debating with the pc police.

    Parent
    PC is NOT absurdity (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    I think we all need to be careful in how we say things. It should not be so hard.

    But I thought it was ironic that people like Hilzoy and John Cole accused me of lunacy when I reacted to what was a plainly sexist, they probably made fun of Lanny Davis - others sure did, and I seriously doubt they will have a word to say about Attaturk's calling Gail Collins -GAIL COLLINS!!! - a racist for what were, at worst, possibly misconstruable remarks.

    I am a PC cop. always have been. always will be. I detest that candidate support drives people like Hilzoy and John Cole to become shameless hypocrites.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    I do try to watch what I say, but I think PC cops have to watch how often they levy these accusations lest they lose all credibility.  We've gotten to a point where many people roll their eyes at accusations of racism simply because they're so used to hearing bogus accusations.

    Parent
    i think the pc police have already lost (none / 0) (#106)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:42:05 AM EST
    credibilty. go out on the street, stand in a line somewhere and ask the average person what they think and not a tv pundit. big difference!

    Parent
    the point of the article (none / 0) (#97)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    is that Ohioans are drawn to workhorse type folks, not rockstar type folks.  They like "roll up your sleeves and work," not, "have a stadium full of fainting fans."

    That was very clear to me, and I think reading some sort of racism into this is a huge stretch.  And this is from someone who didn't think "periodically" was sexist (though I found the rest of the sentence to be incredibly denigrating)

    Parent

    I read the Gail Collins' column... (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by cmugirl on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    ...and no, the word "uppity" never crossed my mind until it was mentioned in this blog,although I did agree with her sentiment of being "show-offy".  Does that make me a racist?  I don't think so - just someone who is tired of a light-weight (oops, that's a boxing term - is that racist too?) getting a free pass.  I don't mind that Hillary gets challenged on legitimate issues, but I resent the he** out of the fact that Obama can't be challenged on ANYTHING.  I believe (and so do many) that it was actually HIS campaign that started the racist b-s.

    How about the fact that African-American superdelegates can't support her or bear the risk of having their seat threatened?  I think that is far more racist than supposed "code" words.

    You know, I liked Obama at the 2004 convention and thought he may make a good presidential candidate someday.  I don't buy the line that we "owe" Hillary anything. But his campaign and his supporters have completely turned me off - and I fit his demographics - under 40, highly educated (3 degrees), middle class, (oh, yeah, female - point to Hillary). But the more I hear about him and from him,I just think "Yuck."

    They're better together: the Tomato - Basil Effect (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ellie on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:29:15 AM EST
    My admiration and respect for both HRC and BO rise when they go head to head in a debate. They bring out each other's strengths and make each other better.

    I don't hold Obama's followers against him. As some people's first political "crush", it's hard not to be swept up in a powerful feeling of thinking you can change the world overnight. Even if they don't stay in it for the long haul, I'm glad to see so many becoming engaged. (I still think they're not looking beyond taking down HRC, though.)

    I can't wait for the first Prez / VP same-sex married couple.

    Parent

    No that is not fact (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:18:12 AM EST
    How about the fact that African-American superdelegates can't support her or bear the risk of having their seat threatened?  I think that is far more racist than supposed "code" words.

    That is supposition on your part based on your desire to explain the AA defections from Hillary to Obama.

    You know what I'm sick of hearing?  People saying "I am so turned off by Candidate X and his/her supporters.  WE AREN'T VOTING FOR THEIR SUPPORTERS!

    Parent

    This is reported (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    Emanuel Cleaver discussed this openly.

    you are not being very fair today.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    Cleaver said that Jackson asked him if he wanted to be the guy that would prevent a black person from becoming President. Cleaver responded "I would have to think about that."

    Jackson also allegedly said ""Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position"

    I guess that's a threat.  Seems more like a rather obvious observation. I would imagine that the most hard core Obama supporters would be young AAs.

    Parent

    So you are explaining away JJ Jr's actions? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    I suppose you can expose yourself in any manner you wish.

    Parent
    Yet again (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    you wish to engage in ad hominem.  

    I don't make accusations of you or demean your views or opinions.  I would hope you could act with equal respect.

    Parent

    Ok PC cop (none / 0) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    What is it when a black person accuses whites of bamboozling or hoodwinking ?  Or doing the Okie doke?  Now that to me is offensive.  Cause I have worked extensively in the black community and that to me was disgusting.  Obama was not referring to Bush, he was referring to the Clintons.  No one has called him on that.  I find that disgusting.  

    Parent
    The way I hear that kind of comment (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    is "I don't want to be one of those people.  I don't want to be associated with them in any way."

    The careful cultivation of "rock star" status (arenas full of teenagers bused in from public schools who act like they're at a Beatles concert) plus vicious attacks from the right against a Democratic candidate all day every day for months on end have combined to make people like me say:  I'm not one of them.

    I'll vote for the guy in the end if he's our nominee, but in the meantime, his supporters do turn me off and make want something more substantive and less ruthless.

    Parent

    One of those people? (none / 0) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    I don't want to be associated with the lunatic fringe.  Can't disagree with that.

    But I also don't judge the candidate because of the lunatic fringe.

    Parent

    Obama has encouraged the lunatic fringe (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    When supporters faint during most candidates' speeches - it's explained as "medical" and usually downplayed.
    But when Obama's followers faint - it's because they're overcome by his "greatness" - and Obama exploits that big time.


    Parent
    The only place (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:01:45 PM EST
    I have heard about the fainting is her and other Hillary sites.

    Parent
    CNN had it (none / 0) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    lots of other news sources had it.  

    Parent
    JJ Jr (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    I don't judge a candidate by their lunatic fringe either.

    JJ Jr is not the Obama lunatic fringe.

    He is a professional politician and the co-chair of Obama's campaign ... one of his chief surrogates.

    His threat to any black superdelgate (or black elected official otherwise) is the most disgusting political tactic I've ever witnessed in my 40 years of voting ...

    I judge Obama on this sort of association.

    He should have rennounced JJ Jr's words and fired him as his co-chair ...

    THEN I would have respected him ...

    He chose instead to let this go ...

    Really disgusting to me and probably most Democrats ... no, most Americans ... no, most Human Beings.

    Parent

    Actually... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    It is not conjecture.  Jesse Jackson, Jr., has told AA congresspeople that they better line up behind Obama, or their seats will be threatened by younger people running against them.  That is the sad fact, whether you want to accept it or not.  And PRECISELY what happened with John Lewis.  

    There is an EXCELLENT article in The New Republic by Sean Wilentz entitled, "Race Man."  It details how Obama's camp started, and has continued, the race-baiting, including the recent, RIDICULOUS incident over the Somali photo, which just so happened to coincide with Clintons Foreign Policy Speech, an area at which she excels and Obama, well, doesn't.  Here's the link: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

    And one last thing - it is fine and dandy for Chris Matthews to call Hillary an "uppity woman," apparently.  Didn't see a whole lot of outcry on THAT.  Just sayin'.

    Parent

    No, we aren't voting for the supporters, but.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by cmugirl on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:22:19 PM EST
    ...they still are turning me off. But when his supporters are allowed to run amok (see below), then I think that speaks to the character of the candidate.  Bill sure got a firestorm of criticism, didn't he? And by insinuation, HRC did too.

    How about the fact that African-American superdelegates can't support her or bear the risk of having their seat threatened?  I think that is far more racist than supposed "code" words.

    That is supposition on your part based on your desire to explain the AA defections from Hillary to Obama.

    No - this is a fact. It may be a veiled threat, but when Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Obama national co-chair says to a sitting Congressman, "If it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?"  Are you saying that's not racist?  Vote for the black guy because he's black, not because you think he's the best person for the job?  

    And, if JJ Jr really believed that superdelegates should support the winners of their district, then he would be calling for Kennedy and Kerry and Patrick to support HRC.  But it only works one way.

    Parent

    Bullsh*t! (none / 0) (#68)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson Jr has threatened this in very direct terms.

    Parent
    Exactly what (none / 0) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    power does Jesse Jackson have to enforce this "threat"?  

    He made a statement that is fairly obvious prima facie.  

    Parent

    JJ Jr Power? (none / 0) (#75)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Geesh,

    Does this need to be explained?

    He has the power as one of the most visible, black politicians in the country to stir up his people ...

    He has done this quite handily this cycle, turning the Clintons into racists to the black community.

    Please don't act as if this doesn't matter and that he has no such power ...

    He clearly does.

    Parent

    JJ Jr? (none / 0) (#77)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    should have said "power to influence"

    Parent
    it's not an empty threat (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    He literally told John Lewis (was all over CNN a few days ago) that they would run someone else against him next time in his district if he didn't submit to the will of the people there.

    Now, I'm not insulting John Lewis for his decision at all - I think he is a man of high integrity. I'm insulting JJ Jr.

    Parent

    Actually Molly (none / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    He said that John Lewis shouldn't be surprised if a young gun challenges him because he feels betrayed his actions.

    But again that in itself isn't really all that meaningful.  John Lewis has vastly more power in his district that Jackson does.  

    Parent

    Money is often the determiner (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    in politics of who has the power. AIPAC did the same thing to McKinney that Jackson Jr. is threatening to do to Lewis. The threat is all about the money. Another candidate will oppose you, and we'll make sure he was the money to do so. Not verbally expressed, necessarily, but it doesn't have to be expressed to be understood.

    Parent
    tree (none / 0) (#98)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    you mean like with Ned Lamont?

    And didn't that work out well!

    Parent

    Gail Collins (none / 0) (#103)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:22:01 PM EST
    I didn't think that show offy meant uppity either.
    To me it meant show offy (or grandiose, pretentious).

    Just what are we allowed to say about Obama?
    Seriously.

    Parent

    This is from dictionary.com, which (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:37:38 PM EST
    is based on Merriam Webster:

    show-off      ˈʃoʊˌɔf, -ˌɒf Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[shoh-awf, -of] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    -noun
    1.    a person given to pretentious display.
    2.    the act of showing off.
    [Origin: 1770-80; n. use of v. phrase show off]

    --Related forms
    show-offish, adjective

    --Synonyms 1. exhibitionist, braggart.



    Parent
    Arrogant, lazy, ambitious ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ellie on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM EST
    I think context and fair application have a lot to do with whether a term is loaded or not. If Obama's being arrogant, hey, I prefer that to spineless -- but then I think "our" side is overdue for Dems that don't hang their heads.

    It drives me crazy to hear reporters and others castigate HRC for being ambitious, but not level that same "criticism" at candidates for high public office.

    The complaint is basically that she showed up to apply for a challenging job, is presenting her credentials to show she can do it, and is attempting to persuade voters to elect her.

    You know, RUNNING FOR FREAKIN' OFFICE. (What do these critics expect women to do? "Run" to become top cookie baker in all the land?)

    Watch it... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cmugirl on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    ... that kind of "cookie" comment got HRC in trouble in '92!  ;)

    Parent
    I'd love to have a First Guy too (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ellie on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:43:03 AM EST
    I'm so glad the press dispensed with that whole ritual of pretending the First Lady would be breezing around in the kitchen like Betty Crocker. How infantile.

    That said, it's been fun reading what the WH chefs have said (in articles and chats) the various First Families go for. I have to admit, I share the GWB's and family's predilection for TexMex (but can do without the hot dogs and pork rinds.)

    (Off to Google HRC's favorite cookies now!)

    Parent

    The New Republic Article (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by nycvoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    Big Tent,

    Can you give me your thoughts on this article accusing Obama's campaign of playing the race-baiting card?
    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

    My friend read the article (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    (she is neither an Obama nor Clinton supporter and doesn't post on political blogs)

    She sent me this e-mail:

    That [article is] seriously nasty, particularly given the fact that everybody is happy to constantly leap on Hilary Clinton's failure to be the right kind of woman. She's "shrill," she's "fat," she's too emotional or she isn't emotional enough--the gender-baiting cr*p is actually happening, but it's harming her and she can't reliably use it to build sympathy. (although that one time when she cried and everybody jeered, she managed to turn that around, apparently?) Meanwhile, nobody's race baiting Obama, much to the disappointment of his campaign managers, who must now frantically build these aircastles to convince the world somebody is! It's not like there's no racism anymore, but most people are ashamed to be racists. Almost everybody is proud to be sexist.

    I don't know if people are proud to be sexists, but they sure are much less aware of their sexism than they are of their racism, if this campaign is any indication.

    Parent

    No, it's just that (none / 0) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    it's acceptable to be sexist.  Still.  We still fight against that "too unstable to be trusted" charge - you know, those hormones could go out of control at the worst possible moment.

    It's very disheartening, but you know, someone probably thinks it's our fault that it's the way it is...

    Parent

    Much better interpretation (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:21:33 PM EST
    Yes, I think that's what my friend meant too. It's acceptable to be sexist, amusing even, lighthearted. And pointing out the instability of Clinton's periodic emotions is just fact, not offensive.

    What drivel.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    I have not read it. Please link properly using the shortcut provided  in the comment boxes.

    Parent
    sorry didn't know to do that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nycvoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:53:31 AM EST

    I hope you'll read this when you have a chance, I'd like to know your thoughts.  

    Parent

    I've been thinking about this myself (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    and getting more and more annoyed about it.

    There's no question that there's still a lot of prejudice out there, and it's also true that there are people who will attribute negative implications to almost anything someone says if that's where their focus is.  And it does not serve the American people well when pundits and opinion writers seize on every opportunity to frame what others say as racist, sexist, or any other kind of -ist, especially when this seems to be designed less for calling people on overt prejudice and more for making it harder and harder for others to register any negative opinion about the candidates they - the pundits and their ilk - clearly support.

    One of the things I've realized is that pretty much everyone ignores Obama's mixed racial heritage, including Obama, but it's his heritage, and his choice to identify as a black man.  I wonder, though, if it would neutralize the focus on coded language if he were to more overtly acknowledge his white background.  And I wonder if, in doing so, he would actually be doing more to dispel the lingering racism, which makes me wonder, also, what his responsibility is to lead on this subject.

    It troubles me, after reading the Wilentz piece that was widely circulated yesterday, that Obama seems to be using race, and gender, in ways that make a mockery of a lot of people's efforts over the years to get past these things so that they see, in this case, only intelligent, capable and accomplished individuals.  I find this to be divisive and likely to set our mental and emotional progress back more than a few decades - this is not what I am looking for in a leader.

    As historic as it is to have a black man and a woman in serious contention for the presidency, that importance and its meaning for the future are diminished somewhat if there continue to be efforts to use race and gender for some kind of purely political advantage.


    i appreciate the thoughts on this article (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycvoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    I did find the storyline of racism over the past 8 weeks troubling and did see it as an opportunity for the man who says he wants to bring people together and have a different kind of politics to stand for something.  I have been disappointed by my perception that Obama allowed this story line and I believe pushed it.  The whole Somali dress thing was especially over the top and supporting Drudge as a resonable source that the Clinton campaign was shopping it around disengenuous.

    More comments on this article would be appreciated.

    Parent

    Calling Obama Arrogant (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:02:55 AM EST
    And backing it up with examples, is different from using racist code words. I think it boils down to intent.

    The AIPAC analogy would be more apt if you were criticizing Liberan policies and then called a racist. Racism is alive and well, when it rears its ugly head it needs to be called out.

    Sometimes it's hard (none / 0) (#4)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    to criticize Hillary without being called a sexist.

    Same coin.  Other side.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    Considering the amount of vitriol delivered at Hillary, it seems to me that your assertion is provably wrong.

    But I am curious, are you saying Lanny Davis is right and he is not crazy? So what do you think of Daivd Kurtz and Greg Sargent on this?

    Parent

    Lanny Davis is correct! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#12)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    that both sides have groups of people that look to get outraged.  It is their stock in trade.  

    I don't think that Gail Collins was being racist but it doesn't surprise me in the least that some people think she was.  

    This is the problem with parsing people's words and then creating your own inference of their meaning.  It can take you wherever you want to go.

    Parent

    You are funny (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    Yes, all things are equal in the way Obama and Clinton are covered.

    Parent
    Feel free (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    to create comments on my behalf.  Certainly makes it easier to argue against my point.

    Where did I say anything about equality of coverage, or even discuss coverage in any way?

    Parent

    That was NOT the implication of your comment? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:25:12 AM EST
    Indeed, Lanny Davis' POINT is about the COVERAGE of the criticism.

    You think he cares if you and Baal get upset at him?

    Either you missed the point or willfully misunderstood it.

    Parent

    If that was the point (none / 0) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    it is utterly wrong.

    Are you guys seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton has been unable to criticize Barack Obama?  

    Random bloggers finding racism behind every door is hardly the same as suggesting that you can't criticize Obama without being called a racist.

    Parent

    You are frankly (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:47:14 AM EST
    not an interesting person for me to discuss this issue with.

    to be perfectly honest, I am somewhat offended by your take on all of this.

    I will leave you to discuss it with others.

    Parent

    You are offended (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    by most of my views.  I think primarily because I disagree with you on them.

    Parent
    you think what you want (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    On this I have nothing further to say to you. I find it depressing discussing it with you.

    Parent
    "I will leave you (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:40:37 PM EST
     to discuss it with others."  Oh nooooooo.

    Parent
    flyerhawk... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but it does seem to me that there is no room in your world for any legitimate problems with racism or sexism. You use terms and phrases all the time like "looking for outrage", "victim politics", "race card", "gender card", etc. in response to those call out these kinds of issues. I just don't understand this kneejerk response - it starts to sound like flat out denial 24/7.

    There cannot be any doubt at this point that Obama has been the victim of some racist commentary by the media and that Clinton has been the victim of plenty of sexist commentary by the media. It has been documented over and over by independent watchdog groups, not to mention millions of engaged people.

    I just don't understand why these problems need to be continually trivilalized by the kinds of phrases listed above. It is actually incredibly saddening to many of us that this campaign, featuring a black man and a woman, has exposed how far behind we still are in these areas.

    Parent

    Hear hear (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    Discussing this with Flyerhawk truly depresses me.

    He seems a good intelligent person expressing his heartfelt views. It demonstrates more clearly than anything how far we have to go to even acknowledge the problem.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    there are very real examples of bigotry out there that are marginalized by perceived examples of bigotry.

    When a person is denied a job because of the color of their skin or their gender THAT is bigotry.  When a person is denied housing for the same reasons that is bigotry.  

    When people use false stereotypes to depict someone that is bigotry.

    When some religious type says "A woman's role is in the home" THAT is sexism.

    When some bigot says "Blacks are inferior workers to whites" THAT is racism.

    When some political figure makes some comment that, given the proper framing, can be construed to be bigoted but it is no consistent with their message and is generally counter-productive to their goals, that is almost certainly NOT bigotry.

    Hillary Clinton is a woman.  It is simply impossible to ignore that and just because someone mentions her being a woman does not make them a sexist.

    Barack Obama is an African-American.  It is simply impossible to ignore that  and just because someone mentions it doesn't make them a racist.

    My biggest problem with this entire campaign has been people trying to create political controversy to help their candidate by using race or gender as a political bludgeon.

    As a person who has had many blacks and women work for me and with me, and seen real bigotry in action, I simply have very little interest in the politics of outrage.  Outrage to me is a woman being marginalized in the workplace because she is pretty.  Outrage to me is a black man not being given promotions because he isn't considered a "good manager".

    That's how I view these things.

    Parent

    Fair enough... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    but I hope you will at least consider what I said above about the use of those phrases - they are hurtful and demeaning when used against those who are genuinely trying to call out examples of bigotry. I can only speak for myself, but I don't call these things out because I thrive on manufactured outrage. I would be extremely happy if they never happened.

    I think I understand where you're coming from - but I disagree with you about has occurred during this campaign. It is not only actions that can be sexist and racist (like the examples you give of people being denied jobs, etc.), it is also language. And some of the language used by the media has been egregious and documented many, many times.

    Parent

    I understand completely (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM EST
    There is certainly real sexism and racism going on in the race.  I am not suggesting otherwise.  

    Words can be bigoted but the problem is that in order for the words to be bigoted we need to know why the speaker said what they said and that is extremely hard to do, especially when dealing with the carefully parsed language of national politics.

    I don't believe that everyone that gets upset is trying to create outage, or even most people.  But there are certainly rabble rousers that do.

    Parent

    But do you believe (none / 0) (#80)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:16:32 PM EST
    that your candidate and his campaign have engaged in both race and gender baiting to "win at all costs?"

    I think the evidence is unequivocally "yes."

    What do you think?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    that you are willing to assume the absolute worst about the Obama campaign because of your personal emotional allegiance to Hillary Clinton.

    Of course you probably also can't distinguish between the Obama campaign and the media.

    Parent

    You lost me ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    I asked you a simple straightforward question about whether you believe, given the ample evidence (JJ Jr's comments being just one example), that the Obama campiagn is engaged in race-baiting to win this election and you deflect the question and accuse me of "not being able to distinguish between the Obama campaign and the media?"

    Notwithstandig the fact that the media is in the tank for Obama, why don't you look at some of the evidence of this and truthfully answer the question.

    And how dare you acuse me and many of the rest of us here of "assuming the absolute worst about the Obama campaign because of [my] personal emotional allegiance to Hillary Clinton."

    I deal in facts, logic and evidence in my line of work, and in my life generally, and that's what I'm doing in reaching my conclusions about these two candidates.

    OTOH, I think it would be fair to say that many of your posts (at least over the past several weeks I've been reading this blog) actually do reflect that you "assume the absolute worst about the Clinton campaign because of your personal emotional allegiance to Barack Obama."


    Parent

    Nice try (none / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    You find a post of mine that has accused the Clinton campaign of anything other incompetency and I will apologize for my assertion.

    So you see the Obama campaign....

    1.  Playing the race card to attack Hillary.
    2.  Using sexism to attack Hillary.

    HOWEVER you don't think that the Hillary campaign has racial to attack Obama and you do think that she is the victim of sexism?  Is that about right?

    Here are some "facts" for you.  Jackson's comment was no more race baiting than Hillary-supporter Ed Rendell's comment that some whites will not vote for Obama because of his color.

    If you a clear and direct answer to your question I'll give it to you right now.

    No, I do not think that the Obama campaign is willfully engaging in sexism in the campaign because there is no value in them doing so.  Barack Obama cannot afford to alienate women, who make up a majority of the Democratic Party's voters.  No, I don't think they are race baiting. The only 2 examples I can think of in which the Obama campaign complained about perceived racial insensitivity were Bill Clinton's dumb comments and the picture this week.

    Couple that with the fact that Barack Obama has REPEATEDLY said that he does not think either Clinton is a racist in any way, and I have a hard time seeing how you have ANY facts to back up your BELIEF.

    Parent

    Strictly on a mathematical basis (none / 0) (#99)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    which demographic is more likely to be worth alienating IF (and I don't say it will do this), IF you judge it will gain you the other group: the 51% of the population that's female or the 12% that's African-American?

    It doesn't make any sense for a Democratic candidate to engage in sexism or racism to win. But on the starkest pragmatic terms, it makes far less sense for the Obama camp to do it. Or so it seems to me.

    Parent

    I would have said "cocky" (none / 0) (#5)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    It's more accurate and less likely to be confused with something it's not.  

    Except (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    Hillary's camp has already been told in the media that 'cocky' is indeed a 'racist' term.

    Parent
    Really? I thot it applied to any (none / 0) (#27)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    arrogant person who was letting their ego get out of control.  
    What does it have to do with race?  


    Parent
    Nothing to do with race (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    that's the point.  

    Parent
    I don't see that as a racist attack (none / 0) (#13)
    by zzyzx on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:16:22 AM EST
    And I'm an Obama supporter.  People are going to try silliness like that from both camps.  "[S]how-offy" isn't racist IMO and "periodically" isn't sexist.  Let's see if we can't keep this race reasonably clean from both supporters so we can unite behind the winner.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    It wasn't just "periodically", it was "Periodically when she's feeling down".

    I suppose men can be just as prone to periodic moodiness.

    I don't know.

    A white guy can be "Show-offy" and "Cocky."  Bill was both those things.

    Can a man be periodically depressed?  I suppose he could be.

    Say it's my bias if you want, "Cocky" and "Show-offy" don't seem as inextricably linked and associated with blackness as "Periodically feeling down" is associated with feminity.


    Parent

    Periodically when she is feeling down (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    She lashes out emotionally.

    Can we have an HONEST discussion of what Obama said on that?

    Parent

    It's my own bias (none / 0) (#45)
    by zzyzx on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    I tend to assume that people don't think that much about the subtle connotations of their words.  From watching the clip, Obama was doing the stuttering and searching for words thing that he does when he's  speaking off the cuff.  It doesn't seem rehearsed and therefore seems like an unfortunate choice of words, not an effective sneak attack.

    Parent
    He's a harvard educated lawyer (none / 0) (#60)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:13:31 PM EST
     He knows words, and how to chose just the right ones, to convey the message he wants to convey. Unfortunate choice of words my behind. The man is highly intelligent.

    Parent
    i think it was calculated, just like (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycvoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    saying she whined about his ads in Ohio during the debate.  I don't recall her whining, I wish she had called him out on it.  While I would never support anyone that I didn't think was ready to be President, I do understand you have to win to be President and am beginning to see Big Tent's reasoning for supporting Obama (winning the media battle)  I think of this racism attack on the Clinton's as the campaign's swiftboating.

    Parent
    I don't know can we? (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    Barack Obama didn't say she lashed out emotionally.  


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    he did.

    You go with your line.

    Parent

    The quote (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    ""I understand that Senator Clinton periodically, when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," Obama said.

    "But I think this kind of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for." "

    Where was emotion referenced?

    Parent

    I believe that "feeling down" (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    refers to the emotion of feeling down.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    you see how talking with Flyerhawk about this gets me feeling down?

    Parent
    Literal and literate (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    are not the same thing.

    Parent
    But it was made in (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    a political context.  Obama said this after Hillary had made some hostile comments towards him after she had done poorly in some elections, I forget which one.

    This is the point I am trying to make.  If you choose to infer that he is referring to her as being emotionally down you can accept the charge that it is sexism. If, otoh, you believe that he was referring to her campaign being down, then you don't see the sexism.

    How can we know either way?  Does Obama have a track record of being a sexist?  Only the most partisan of Hillary supporters would think that.  So what reasons do people have for thinking that Obama decided to take a sexist shot at Hillary, a shot that would surely have a negative impact on his campaign.

    Parent

    good grief (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:36:57 PM EST
    "This is the point I am trying to make.  If you choose to infer that he is referring to her as being emotionally down you can accept the charge that it is sexism. If, otoh, you believe that he was referring to her campaign being down, then you don't see the sexism. How can we know either way?"

    Now I get why BTD doesn't engage with you. For the love of god, no one is 'choosing to infer' anything. We can "know either way" because of exactly what his words were. It is not about belief. He did not say anything about her campaign being down; he said that she was feeling down and that's why she attacked him.

    I now believe that you are deliberately trying obfuscate. Bye.

    Parent

    I heard an evangelical leader (none / 0) (#16)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:19:26 AM EST
    on the radio this morning, talking about how "almost felt sorry for Hillary Clinton," because it seemed to him that she's treating the campaign as a job interview and Obama's treating it as date.  

    That sounded right to me, and wrt this thread, it also seems that once you've agreed to go on that date, you resent the hell out of other people dissing your taste.  There are 2 sets of rules because the 2 candidates are doing 2 fundamentally different things . . . and because the press despises HRC, but that's another topic.

    Yet again (none / 0) (#29)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    the conflation of the blogosphere, the institutional media, and the Obama campaign.  

    Let's stipulate that somebody on the Internet is going to say almost anything, including that people who criticize Obama are racist and people who criticize Clinton are sexist.  

    But there are lots of examples of Clinton crtiticizing Obama without being accused of racist by anyone in the institutional media or the Obama campaign.

    Um (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM EST
    Where in blazes did I mention the Obama campaign.

    I DETEST dishonest attacks.

    Parent

    I didn't say you did (none / 0) (#40)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    My point is that a comment on a blog does not prove Lanny Davis's point.

    Moreover, you will find that many commenters on this blog, though apparently no you, vigorously accuse the Obama campaign of playing the race card at every opportunity.

    Parent

    Who were you talking about then? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    Are you saying your comment to me in my post is not about what I wrote?

    If we can not follow the most basic of conventions of communication, how can we ever discuss anything?

    Parent

    Your post (none / 0) (#55)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    Appeared to present a blog post as evidence that "it's very hard to criticize Senator Obama without being accused of playing the race card."  That was what I was objecting to.

    Or were you suggesting that Lanny Davis actually is crazy?

    Parent

    sort of (none / 0) (#66)
    by rilkefan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    I was going to raise a similar objection - that Attaturk isn't a good example of what Davis was referring to, though it is a good example of the quality of discourse among fairly prominent blog voices.

    However, you can't get from examples of critiques of Obama's policies not getting race-baited to disproving Davis's claim about criticisms of Obama.  If, as I think is likely the case, the Obama campaign and the media have made it difficult to criticize Obama say post-SC, you wouldn't expect the Clinton campaign to keep bloodying themselves against that wall - instead you'd expect to see their critical statements to become limited or hedged.  One needs to consider the data the Davis thesis rests on and its inferred effect on the Clinton campaign's legitimate language.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#79)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:14:44 PM EST
    the fact that it is not proven doesn't disprove it.

    What does disprove it is that the Clinton campaign has been consistently criticizing Obama since South Carolina and has not been called racist (except perhaps by a few bloggers).  Action v. words, "shame on you," plagiarism, running away from debates, against universal health care, present votes, not ready to lead, etc.  None of these post-SC attacks have been branded as racist by the mainstream media or the Obama campaign.  

    Parent

    Success in politics (none / 0) (#39)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    requires being able to choose the right words at the right times.

    is that what this item is about?

    or is it one more assertion that Obama gets a "pass" from the media?

    is the premise that the media is the most important reason for his success so far?

    And if that's true, and the media is so overwhelmingly in control of people's minds, then shouldn't the candidate best able to "play" that media be the one we should look to for any hope of legislative change requiring nation-wide consensus building?

    Yes to all (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    It is why I support Obama.

    Parent
    Compromise? (none / 0) (#87)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    BTD,

    I am relatively new here ... and this may be a little off topic, but ...

    I did want to say that while I thoroughly enjoy and agree with your viewpoint on many things, I am struggling to understand why you seem willing to compromise your core beliefs to elect a Democrat "at all costs" ...

    (BTW, I enjoyed you when you were "just" Armando over at DKos ...)

    Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that seems to be where you're positioned ... that is, since Obama has the best chance of winning the presidency, I'll vote for him even though I truly believe Hillary is the better candidate and is more in tune with my own beliefs ...

    Maybe this overstates your philosophical and ideological compatibility with Hillary, but it seems like you are selling out just to get a Dem elected ...


    Parent

    This may be OT... (none / 0) (#83)
    by K Lynne on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    It seems to me that for as far back as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been that it would be far more difficult for a Black man (or woman, for that matter) to be elected POTUS.  

    I wonder, though, exactly where Barack Obama would be if his name were Michael Jones and he was caucasian.  Would a handsome white Junior senator with the oratory skills, charm, and experience of Barack Obama have any real chance of winning the nomination?  

    And of course, now I'm concerned that this comment will be considered racist...  

    -K Lynne

    NOT Racist (none / 0) (#93)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    I don't think your comment is racist, nor do I think mine (below) is either ... but some will think it is ...

    I don't think that Obama's name or skin color have anything to do with his popularity, per se.

    He is an attractive, intelligent, articulate, charismatic individual ... he would be this regardless of race, sex or name.

    HOWEVER, the racial tensions that seem to still exist in this country could not have been mobilized to turn the AA demographic against Hillary without the existence of an AA as her opponent.

    So, I don't believe Hillary would have had any trouble becoming the Dem nominee were it not for the AA dynamic in this race (no pun or offense intended.)

    OTOH, to be fair, Michael Jones, the Caucasian (and like Obama in every other way), could have had a chance were he able to marginalize the overwhelmingly pro-Hillary female demographic to the extent that Obama has succeeded in doing this with the AA demographic in opposition to Hillary.

    Hope what I'm saying makes sense to others ...


    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#89)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    all around.

    And I agree with Gail Collins - Sen Clinton is a very good candidate but Obama is the better one.

    Just read Hilzoy's dismissal of (none / 0) (#92)
    by frankly0 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:52:31 PM EST
    the possible sexism in Obama's remarks.

    What gets me about her argument is that essentially every single case of alleged "racism" or "racially tinged" remarks by the Clinton campaign, or its supporters, is only vastly less plausible as examples of racism.

    Would hilzoy dismiss every single one of those cases? Would she essentially agree with Sean Wilentz's description of the Obama campaign and its enablers in the media as playing the race card?

    Somehow, I just rather doubt that the "philosopher" hilzoy could muster up the objectivity and candor necessary to make that explicit statement. Maybe she has done so -- I'm not going to spend the time to go over all her posts - but I'd be mighty surprised if she has.