Our berry own Bharath Obama fired back at his rivals regarding his intentions for Pakistan and the WoT, at yesterday’s AFL-CIO Presidential Forum, which went down on his turf (thanks, Amrita):
Mutinous backstory for his rejoinder here and here.
92 thoughts on “I heart how he pronounces “Pakistan”.”
I feel he sounded arrogant in making his previous statements about pakistan but did an excellent job in clarifying what the basis of his argument is in a respectful manner. I like him alot.
I know delectable cleavage, but what is this electable cleavage of which you speak?
The one that gets you elected. It can also be delectable – they’re not mutually exclusive.
Don’t forget Bloomberg. He’s who I will vote for.
Yeah. When does he announce his candidacy? Go third-party/independent candidates!! 🙂
i like obama’s speaking voice. he sounds presidential.
From the way things are going for him, he is sounding more and more vice presidential to me.
I remember hearing somewhere, someplace that Obama’s stature, his physique, the drape of his suits and thin neckties subconsciously hark back to the Kennedy brothers, particularly JFK, who was more polished of the two. Yet, Obama’s urbane manner differs from the Cape Cod kind in that his is more international, which I think this post points out.
I agree with Manish, especially if we consider that Dems should be running against the war-in-Iraq. “More of the same” ain’t gonna cut it. Change, change, change, CHANGE. Differentiate yourself from the unpopular “leader” who got us in to this CF…how is that so difficult to grok?
I think there are limits to how much you can run against the war. That’s why it’s to Obama’s advantage to open and close questions with a forceful reminder that he was against the damn thing from the get-go and Hillary has been rather spineless throughout. However, too much anti-Iraq war posturing risks having your constituents believe that ALL the troops will be out during their term and that just ain’t gonna happen, irrespective of who’s President. Hillary’s been mincing words with that point from the beginning and Obama’s is starting speak more candidly about how pulling out all troops is wishful thinking. I think the geopolitical fallout of the war is making them seems more Bush Cheney Lite than both of them really are.
All that said, I think Obama has been pragmatic since he came out of the womb and his position on Iraq was right for all the right reasons and if his positions are now drifting closer and closer to Hillary’s, I still trust him as a better steward to see this thing through.
razib:
not as big of a deal as when non von mises heard me quoted on the radio during the radio open source show!
it was that moment when bloggers became real to me. Plus, you responded to my fanmail. Until then, for me, bloggers were wannabe public intellectuals or navel-gazing socialites. Hearing you and Amardeep sharing the hour with Nussbaum was a humanizing experience. Respect!
Oh and I’m quite clear about what bloggers are now, via Colbert-
“For those of you that don’t know what a blogger is, it’s someone with a laptop, an ax to grind and their virginity.â€
Amardeep —
But Hillary is right that this could cause more problems for Musharraf, and it certainly would become a BIG problem if Obama were to get elected next year.
I think Musharraf’s been doing a heckuva job on his own in causing problems for himself for many months now, thank you very much. And did you actually read the rest of Obama’s speech, or just the soundbite that the mainstream media has pulled out and fixated on? He’s the only candidate who has talked about democracy in Pakistan in any meaningful way or suggested a true alternative strategy when it comes to foreign policy — not that his discussion was perfect, beyond reproach, or couldn’t be developed further, but he’s certainly pushing the envelope for change in foreign policy more than the other principal candidates.
Overall, Obama has been put on the defensive now on his foreign policy statements twice. He may sound presidential — and I gather he’s almost as appealing to women as the mighty Shah Rukh Khan — but I think he’s losing ground.
I don’t think he lost ground in that exchange at all, and not just because of his supposed “appeal to women,” who presumably pay attention to substance as much as men do. As Manish and Anna said, the exchange left Hillary and others on that stage sounding entirely like more of the same.
Manish —
the fundie parties in an election rigged in their favor crested at 11%.
Not only that, but restoring democracy might actually be the best hope for curbing the fundies as well.
Please add your blog to our new directory of Indian blogs… and we’d love it if you use one of our badges as well!
Instead she said said you shouldnt answer hypotheticals because they tend to overplay one’s hand in complex foreign policy situations and often results in intransigent black and white answers which are embarassing, hurtful from a negotiative stand point and unnuanced (‘Axis of Evil’ anyone).
i was a bit surprised when she said this – i find it very hard for any of these candidates not to deal with hypotheticals during the course of their campaigns. i understand her points about nuance and foreign policy, but she clearly said candidates should not deal with hypotheticals, so it could actually make things a bit hard on her if/when, during a future debate, she will have to respond to a hypo – she’ll either not answer but lose substantive ground over her other candidates who might choose to answer, or she’ll have to take back her comment about not answering hypotheticals. as a politician, she should have reserved some escape hatch in the hypothetical situation…
Ce blast wrote:
As for the second part, are you making the argument that Musharraf’s overwhelming electoral majorities in his past couple free and fair elections demonstrate he could withstand any fundie push? Have you picked up a paper lately?
No Manish didn’t make that point. The past election resulted in the PML-Q, PML-N and PPP coming out on top (by votes), with the MQM doing as well as it always has. The MMA had a record result, due to the unification of the religious party vote, concetration of votes in certain provinces, and the backlash from the afghanistan invasion, but it still can’t match the secular parties (even with elections rigged against the PML-N and PPP). The MMA did especially poorly in Punjab, winning only 9 out of 300 provincial seats and less than 6% of the vote.
Read anything about the red mosque? And by the way, how did Musharraf originally come to power? I’m sure that in Pakistan of all places, Musharraf’s democratic strength will save us from a fundie push.
There’s more to Pakistan than Musharraf and the Lal Masjid. Democratic elections in Pakistan mya result in idiot industrialists or corrupt feudals returning to power, not bearded Mullahs.
On top of that the MMA literally controls probably the most powerful militaristic and terrorist capability outside of the army
…but why did he say AFF-GANN-is-TAN and not af-GHAAN-is-TAAN?
Here’s a piece on Obama and his fund-raising from today’s Boston Globe.
ak, I totally forgot to bring that up. I agree with you. “Let’s not engage in hypotheticals”?? WOW. That’s ALL you can engage in, sometimes. Besides, hypotheticals are a part of campaign history:
The issue of capital punishment came up in the October 13, 1988 debate between the two presidential nominees. Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Dukakis replied coolly, “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life,” and explained his stance. During debate preparations, Dukakis’s campaign manager Susan Estrich had prepared an answer highlighting the candidate’s empathy for victims of crime, noting the beating of his father in a robbery and the death of his brother in a hit-and-run car accident. Many observers felt Dukakis’ answer lacked the passion one would expect of a person discussing a loved one’s rape and death. Many — including the candidate himself — believe that this, in part, cost Dukakis the election, as his poll numbers dropped from 49% to 42% nationally that night. Other commentators thought the question itself was unfair, in that it injected an irrelevant emotional element into the discussion of a policy issue. [wiki]
Why shouldn’t we be able to ask a candidate, “what would you do if ______”? Her response surprised me. I have a feeling her meticulous, type-A, perfectionist self regretted it, after.
I’m with ak — Clinton did not give herself much of an out, and while I understand her point about caution, it seems silly to think that one will not be faced with hypotheticals during a presidential race.
It’s true, a lot of her lines are “more of the same.” On the other hand, I’ve actually been impressed by how much she’s stepped up her non-foreign policy related policy issues, and her messaging is generally pretty tight. I do think she could carry the country, but I worry that this will come down to her having to posture as tough/manly, which is kind of her MO at present, anyway. In terms of electoral votes, though, unfortunately she doesn’t bring too much to the table.
I don’t think Obama could hold it down as a presidential candidate, but I do think he’d make a bang up VP. For a while I wondered if there would be a Clinton/Obama ticket, but his campaign keeps nipping at her ankles like a badly behaved puppy. It’s going to be fascinating to see how things shift/unravel at the end of the year, especially with all these crazy “pushed up” primaries.
enough with this “he speaks so well” bullshit. So he’s not Lil Jon. This all sounds as condescending as when republicans were clapping like seals for colin powell. The fact that his father was Muslim and he grew up in Indonesia might account for his decent pronunciation of Pakistan and Muslim, though I’ve never seen someone so celebrated for simply pronouncing a word since my 2-year old said fucker.
here’s why he’s a dip to south asians.
there is a common (and ridiculous) question that he’s often asked, something along the lines of “are you really black?” In his 1995 book, he talks about how he asked himself that question and had it asked of him when he was trying to do work in some chicago projects. His answer there is great, coming to a conclusion that nobody is more “authentically” black than anyone else and that racial authenticity is a (sometimes useful) sham. Nowadays he has a stock answer: “Cab drivers in manhattan don’t make this mistake.” This is a sly and calculated response. It plays on the black prejudice and rumor that indian cab drivers don’t pick up black people. All the evidence for this rumor is anecdotal and it blew up during giuliani’s term when danny glover got upset about it. It is low-risk because cab drivers are politically powerless. Let’s see if he would ever say “police officers in new jersey make no mistake about it when I’m driving.”
this whole letter thing with the hilary clinton campaign. but fine, let it slide.
These two things to me (admittedly paranoid) show a sense of south asians being a politically expendable group, and then when he decides, “hmm, how should I show them that I’m a toughie like hilary?” and decides upon, “I’ll threaten a unilateral invasion of Pakistan!” it shows him to be a) an idiot, and b) willing to at least consider starting war on a poltically conveinent group.
Conclusion: Fuck him in the ear. Fuck him in the other ear. He’s lost all interest for me and I find him to be as much of a fraud as the other candidates. It’s a somewhat sad realization, but at least in knowing that he wont win the nomination or election (he never had a chance), I don’t feel as if such a great opportunity was missed.
ANNA, camille – thanks. when i think of debates, i cannot not think of hypotheticals that are asked during them. hypotheticals can always be qualified with ‘specific circumstances’ during a debate. and HRC should not have made the categoric statement that she did – she could have said everything else that she said and then made some comment about how hypotheticals are always a bit iffy in for-pol situations. when i saw this clip on the daily show, i thought this point would have been great material for jon stewart to run with, but even he didn’t bring it up. and this was also a rehearsed comment – how could her entire staff overlook this idiocy?
though I’ve never seen someone so celebrated for simply pronouncing a word since my 2-year old said fucker.
LOL. noblekinsman, i do agree that there is a general (condescending) surprise that comes when people hear AAs who speak ‘standard’ english. to take an example from television, part of why the cosby show was such a big thing was because it showed two upper middle class professionals and how they were ‘just like us’ – highlighting the fact that standard stereotype of AAs tends to be of a community that is lower-incomed, lesser educated, and improperly dictioned.
enough with this “he speaks so well” bullshit. So he’s not Lil Jon. This all sounds as condescending as when republicans were clapping like seals for colin powell.
The issue was not whether he’s articulate, but rather the actual timbre and tone quality of his voice, which, as far as I know, has nothing to do with anyone’s perceptions of race. And, given that pretty much everyone in Washington butchers the pronunciation of “Pakistan,” I think it’s fine to give a hat-tip for that (although that is NOT the main point of this post). I feel the same way re: pronunciation of Iraq. As my friend says, “If you’re going to bomb the country, at least learn how to say its name correctly.”
Also, re: cab drivers and blackness, I don’t actually want to get into it, but I think Obama actually brings up a good point regarding the inherently racist logic behind the idea that African immigrants (and their descendants) are not “Black.” A friend of mine (Nigerian) expressed the same thing in college. Up until her junior year she would correct people and tell them she was African (not to be anti-Black, but because she was trying to enlighten others). Finally she realized that, to an extent, the idea of being Black also comes from an outside perception of who you are, and no one on the street cares if your family are African immigrants — to the layperson, you’re Black. I think this is what Obama is getting at. While we may be used to desi cab drivers, there are quite a few, I’m sure, who aren’t desi and still see him as a black guy. 🙂
and HRC should not have made the categoric statement that she did – she could have said everything else that she said and then made some comment about how hypotheticals are always a bit iffy in for-pol situations.
If she’s nominated, I’m sure this will come back and bite her in the ass.
enough with this “he speaks so well” bullshit. So he’s not Lil Jon. This all sounds as condescending as when republicans were clapping like seals for colin powell. The fact that his father was Muslim and he grew up in Indonesia might account for his decent pronunciation of Pakistan and Muslim, though I’ve never seen someone so celebrated for simply pronouncing a word since my 2-year old said fucker
And please, enough with your insinuations. No one said “he speaks so well for a BLACK PERSON”. You said that. No one here was so inappropriate or condescending, and to suggest it is offensive.
It’s okay to like someone’s voice, whether that person is Gregory Peck, Barry White, or Obama. It’s okay to notice the little things, like how someone pronounces the name of a country, especially if they do it so well, that it’s surprising. None of these things should be invalidated.
The issue was not whether he’s articulate, but rather the actual timbre and tone quality of his voice, which, as far as I know, has nothing to do with anyone’s perceptions of race.
If we could explore this just a little bit. I would disagree here. In the popular mind, the perception of ‘sounding black’ is not just about ‘accent’, grammar, vocabulary, ‘stammer’, articulation – or lack thereof – it is also partly about the timbre and tonal quality of the voice. As an example, I would say that James Earl Jones and Bernard Shaw (who asked the question of Dukakis that Anna referenced) have the tonal quality that many people think only ‘black’ men have, or can have.
I would like to think that tone and timbre – both in range and quality – are evenly distributed across all ethnicities. But in the popular imagination, it is believed that black men have distinctive timbre. That may be from prejudice and stereotyping, or from drawing conclusions from biased samples, etc. Or there may be some truth to it. But in either case, the fact is that tonal quality and timbre do factor into people’s perception of race. So any kind of commentary on Obama’s voice – and how he uses it – occurs in the background of perceptions (and prejudices) of this kind, and can easily be misconstrued.
But chachaji, how do you explain Gregory Peck, then? 😉
I see where you’re coming from, I just think that this post has illuminated a range of people (ethnically and professionally) who have “soothing” or “distinct” voices. Just my opinion.
has illuminated a range of people (ethnically and professionally) who have “soothing” or “distinct” voices. Just my opinion
I don’t mean to go too offtopic but that is so true.There are some voices that are unmistakable and define a generation such as Ameen Sayani’s voice , which is instantly recognizable for generations of DBDs. Besides Gregory Peck: Sean Connery and Morgan Freeman too have distinctive voices that lend themselves so well to narration. I always believed that part of Meryl Streep’s mystique is her voice : how she modulates it and enunciates dialogue adds to the performance everytime
has illuminated a range of people (ethnically and professionally) who have “soothing” or “distinct” voices. Just my opinion
I don’t mean to go too off topic but that is so true.There are some voices that are unmistakable and define a generation such as Ameen Sayani’s voice , which is instantly recognizable for generations of DBDs. Besides Gregory Peck: Sean Connery and Morgan Freeman too have distinctive voices that lend themselves so well to narration. I always believed that part of Meryl Streep’s mystique is her voice : how she modulates it and enunciates dialogue adds to the performance everytime
SMIntern:Apologies for the duplicate post – please delete 🙁
I remember hearing somewhere, someplace that Obama’s stature, his physique, the drape of his suits and thin neckties subconsciously hark back to the Kennedy brothers, particularly JFK, who was more polished of the two. Yet, Obama’s urbane manner differs from the Cape Cod kind in that his is more international, which I think this post points out.
i think he’s mostly compared to rfk, nvm, b/c of their similar stature and outsider image. JFK was skinny once too but the tons of drugs he took to battle addison’s disease and a host of other ailments (including venereal disease…he lost his virginity to a hooker, which is irrelevant i know but i like to keep things entertaining) bloated him, especially on the face…if you look at pictures of him when he was a congressman and then during his presidency you’ll see the abnormal bloating. all obama needs now is his own marilyn monroe.
i got this from doris kearns goodwin’s “the fitzgeralds and the kennedys.” great read, despite being Kaavyed.
i think he’s mostly compared to rfk, nvm, b/c of their similar stature and outsider image.
Another super-sexy politician, although a bit more meat on his bones than Obama.
Ok, I’ll stop. I know this was supposed to be about substance, not how I swoon over Gregory Peck’s voice or why I think RFK is sexy. Runa, agreed on Sean Connery, although it’s hard for me to find his voice soothing because I always think of Jeopardy! 🙂
He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage??
So its Obama’s Presidential voice vs. Hillary’s electable cleavage
I am sooo excited!
articulateness is an important presidential criterion. bush’s lack of it has hurt him greatly, as camille paglia predicted early on. he’s incapable of giving a rousing cogent defense of the war, something that blair does extremely well.
reagan, churchill, fdr all benefitted from articulateness. although i was listening to some churchill speaches yesterday and it is obvious that he was sloshed (churchill started drinking at breakfast).
Obama looks.. odd. No not becos he’s black etc, in fact some older black gentlemen are high on the personality scale.. this guy looks odd. NOT charismatic enough to be a president. Does not look knowledgable enough. looks too young, and unfortunately, trivial. Does not have what they call, ‘presence’.
Obama looks.. odd. No not becos he’s black etc, in fact some older black gentlemen are high on the personality scale…Does not look knowledgable enough. looks too young, and unfortunately, trivial. Does not have what they call, ‘presence’.
I’m confused; are you superficially dismissing him because of his looks or his personality?
So its Obama’s Presidential voice vs. Hillary’s electable cleavage
Sorry, I missed giuliani’s shining bald head
Here’s more on this whole Pakistan exchange from one of the best political journalists/bloggers, Josh Marshall. (Marshall founded the TPM blog emprie, which is probably the best investigative political blog out there — they broke, among other stories, the US attorney/firing scandal.)
I remember hearing somewhere, someplace that Obama’s stature, his physique, the drape of his suits and thin neckties subconsciously hark back to the Kennedy brothers, particularly JFK, who was more polished of the two.
If there’s one person from that era that Obama superficially reminds me most of, it’s Malcolm X.
Overall, Obama has been put on the defensive now on his foreign policy statements twice.
Amardeep, good point. And unfortunately, in both cases, he was made to look naive by folks equivocating. Hillary’s argument that she wouldn’t meet evil dictators without extensive prep was a little shallow. No president would invite Castro before the administrations did a whole bunch of work. And like someone here pointed out, Dodd/Clinton don’t disagree with him, they just won’t say it out loud; which sounds little condescending to me. Pakistanis already don’t trust their president and think he is a US puppet.
Do the criticisms of Obama re: his Pakistan statements take it as implicit that the “problem” with them is violation of Pakistani sovereignty?
If so, I’m dubious–it seems to me that the attacks would either be morally justified or not (under, e.g., just war theory). “Sovereignty” seems
like an empty formalism (and a statist one at that–like the supposed “international law” rule that you can kill all the drafted soldiers, but
can’t assassinate the enemy leadership).
On the other hand, the criticisms of Obama might take it as implicit that (net) bad consequences would be expected from such attacks. That might be.
But it bothers me that the anti-Obama criticisms seldom seem to get down to brass tacks on this point.
Divya, I hope you realized that I was joking. 🙂
It just goes to show the paucity of ideas that the media have that something like this gets so much attention.
Sorry Amit, by “people” I meant the media. I realized you were joking. =) Thanks everyone for the Hillary-Barack Punjab name-calling… I didn’t know that Hillary “started” it.
Divya, no apologies necessary. I just meant to clarify my intention with the original comment as it is easy to misinterpret on the internet minus the vocal tone and facial expressions. 🙂
Hillary is Bush-lite; Obama is Hillary-lite. I’d like Nader to run again and raise the democrats’ hackles, frankly. will he make a difference? I dont know. Did he in 2000? Where are the good studies? loved An Unreasonable Man. Great to watch Moore and the rest of the silly shrill crowd do an about-face and turn on Nader in 2004 after being all pro-Nader in 2000. Short of that, and leaving aside identity-politics as a marker of progress, I will settle for…Edwards? Obama sounds less and less like he has anything substantive to say about anything. Nuance is one thing, not having clear or distinguishable policies is another.
so is he going to start pronouncing California and Colorado in Spanish and rolling his r’s ? Saying (te/haas) instead of ( tek-sÉ™s, -siz) they way americans anglicized it , baton rouge in a nasally french way? I mean how far can you take this…..he’s got a great voice but as many of know that 90% a gift of God , something we gave little to do with.
I feel he sounded arrogant in making his previous statements about pakistan but did an excellent job in clarifying what the basis of his argument is in a respectful manner. I like him alot.
I know delectable cleavage, but what is this electable cleavage of which you speak?
The one that gets you elected. It can also be delectable – they’re not mutually exclusive.
Yeah. When does he announce his candidacy? Go third-party/independent candidates!! 🙂
From the way things are going for him, he is sounding more and more vice presidential to me.
I remember hearing somewhere, someplace that Obama’s stature, his physique, the drape of his suits and thin neckties subconsciously hark back to the Kennedy brothers, particularly JFK, who was more polished of the two. Yet, Obama’s urbane manner differs from the Cape Cod kind in that his is more international, which I think this post points out.
I think there are limits to how much you can run against the war. That’s why it’s to Obama’s advantage to open and close questions with a forceful reminder that he was against the damn thing from the get-go and Hillary has been rather spineless throughout. However, too much anti-Iraq war posturing risks having your constituents believe that ALL the troops will be out during their term and that just ain’t gonna happen, irrespective of who’s President. Hillary’s been mincing words with that point from the beginning and Obama’s is starting speak more candidly about how pulling out all troops is wishful thinking. I think the geopolitical fallout of the war is making them seems more Bush Cheney Lite than both of them really are.
All that said, I think Obama has been pragmatic since he came out of the womb and his position on Iraq was right for all the right reasons and if his positions are now drifting closer and closer to Hillary’s, I still trust him as a better steward to see this thing through.
razib:
it was that moment when bloggers became real to me. Plus, you responded to my fanmail. Until then, for me, bloggers were wannabe public intellectuals or navel-gazing socialites. Hearing you and Amardeep sharing the hour with Nussbaum was a humanizing experience. Respect!
Oh and I’m quite clear about what bloggers are now, via Colbert-
“For those of you that don’t know what a blogger is, it’s someone with a laptop, an ax to grind and their virginity.â€
Amardeep —
I think Musharraf’s been doing a heckuva job on his own in causing problems for himself for many months now, thank you very much. And did you actually read the rest of Obama’s speech, or just the soundbite that the mainstream media has pulled out and fixated on? He’s the only candidate who has talked about democracy in Pakistan in any meaningful way or suggested a true alternative strategy when it comes to foreign policy — not that his discussion was perfect, beyond reproach, or couldn’t be developed further, but he’s certainly pushing the envelope for change in foreign policy more than the other principal candidates.
I don’t think he lost ground in that exchange at all, and not just because of his supposed “appeal to women,” who presumably pay attention to substance as much as men do. As Manish and Anna said, the exchange left Hillary and others on that stage sounding entirely like more of the same.
Manish —
Not only that, but restoring democracy might actually be the best hope for curbing the fundies as well.
Please add your blog to our new directory of Indian blogs… and we’d love it if you use one of our badges as well!
http://www.indiblogger.in
i was a bit surprised when she said this – i find it very hard for any of these candidates not to deal with hypotheticals during the course of their campaigns. i understand her points about nuance and foreign policy, but she clearly said candidates should not deal with hypotheticals, so it could actually make things a bit hard on her if/when, during a future debate, she will have to respond to a hypo – she’ll either not answer but lose substantive ground over her other candidates who might choose to answer, or she’ll have to take back her comment about not answering hypotheticals. as a politician, she should have reserved some escape hatch in the hypothetical situation…
Ce blast wrote: As for the second part, are you making the argument that Musharraf’s overwhelming electoral majorities in his past couple free and fair elections demonstrate he could withstand any fundie push? Have you picked up a paper lately?
No Manish didn’t make that point. The past election resulted in the PML-Q, PML-N and PPP coming out on top (by votes), with the MQM doing as well as it always has. The MMA had a record result, due to the unification of the religious party vote, concetration of votes in certain provinces, and the backlash from the afghanistan invasion, but it still can’t match the secular parties (even with elections rigged against the PML-N and PPP). The MMA did especially poorly in Punjab, winning only 9 out of 300 provincial seats and less than 6% of the vote.
Read anything about the red mosque? And by the way, how did Musharraf originally come to power? I’m sure that in Pakistan of all places, Musharraf’s democratic strength will save us from a fundie push.
There’s more to Pakistan than Musharraf and the Lal Masjid. Democratic elections in Pakistan mya result in idiot industrialists or corrupt feudals returning to power, not bearded Mullahs.
On top of that the MMA literally controls probably the most powerful militaristic and terrorist capability outside of the army
Nope. That would be the MQM.
I don’t know how to feel about Obama.
He does have a commanding voice, as well as a commanding presence; but there’s something about him—I feel like he’s just playing up to the hype that’s surrounding him. What I don’t know is whether it’s hype or real. Interesting article on the Clinton/Obama tension: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/us/politics/07rivals.html?_r=3&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin So there’s no hope for them to run together?
…but why did he say AFF-GANN-is-TAN and not af-GHAAN-is-TAAN?
Here’s a piece on Obama and his fund-raising from today’s Boston Globe.
ak, I totally forgot to bring that up. I agree with you. “Let’s not engage in hypotheticals”?? WOW. That’s ALL you can engage in, sometimes. Besides, hypotheticals are a part of campaign history:
Why shouldn’t we be able to ask a candidate, “what would you do if ______”? Her response surprised me. I have a feeling her meticulous, type-A, perfectionist self regretted it, after.
I’m with ak — Clinton did not give herself much of an out, and while I understand her point about caution, it seems silly to think that one will not be faced with hypotheticals during a presidential race.
It’s true, a lot of her lines are “more of the same.” On the other hand, I’ve actually been impressed by how much she’s stepped up her non-foreign policy related policy issues, and her messaging is generally pretty tight. I do think she could carry the country, but I worry that this will come down to her having to posture as tough/manly, which is kind of her MO at present, anyway. In terms of electoral votes, though, unfortunately she doesn’t bring too much to the table.
I don’t think Obama could hold it down as a presidential candidate, but I do think he’d make a bang up VP. For a while I wondered if there would be a Clinton/Obama ticket, but his campaign keeps nipping at her ankles like a badly behaved puppy. It’s going to be fascinating to see how things shift/unravel at the end of the year, especially with all these crazy “pushed up” primaries.
enough with this “he speaks so well” bullshit. So he’s not Lil Jon. This all sounds as condescending as when republicans were clapping like seals for colin powell. The fact that his father was Muslim and he grew up in Indonesia might account for his decent pronunciation of Pakistan and Muslim, though I’ve never seen someone so celebrated for simply pronouncing a word since my 2-year old said fucker.
here’s why he’s a dip to south asians.
there is a common (and ridiculous) question that he’s often asked, something along the lines of “are you really black?” In his 1995 book, he talks about how he asked himself that question and had it asked of him when he was trying to do work in some chicago projects. His answer there is great, coming to a conclusion that nobody is more “authentically” black than anyone else and that racial authenticity is a (sometimes useful) sham. Nowadays he has a stock answer: “Cab drivers in manhattan don’t make this mistake.” This is a sly and calculated response. It plays on the black prejudice and rumor that indian cab drivers don’t pick up black people. All the evidence for this rumor is anecdotal and it blew up during giuliani’s term when danny glover got upset about it. It is low-risk because cab drivers are politically powerless. Let’s see if he would ever say “police officers in new jersey make no mistake about it when I’m driving.”
this whole letter thing with the hilary clinton campaign. but fine, let it slide.
These two things to me (admittedly paranoid) show a sense of south asians being a politically expendable group, and then when he decides, “hmm, how should I show them that I’m a toughie like hilary?” and decides upon, “I’ll threaten a unilateral invasion of Pakistan!” it shows him to be a) an idiot, and b) willing to at least consider starting war on a poltically conveinent group.
Conclusion: Fuck him in the ear. Fuck him in the other ear. He’s lost all interest for me and I find him to be as much of a fraud as the other candidates. It’s a somewhat sad realization, but at least in knowing that he wont win the nomination or election (he never had a chance), I don’t feel as if such a great opportunity was missed.
ANNA, camille – thanks. when i think of debates, i cannot not think of hypotheticals that are asked during them. hypotheticals can always be qualified with ‘specific circumstances’ during a debate. and HRC should not have made the categoric statement that she did – she could have said everything else that she said and then made some comment about how hypotheticals are always a bit iffy in for-pol situations. when i saw this clip on the daily show, i thought this point would have been great material for jon stewart to run with, but even he didn’t bring it up. and this was also a rehearsed comment – how could her entire staff overlook this idiocy?
LOL. noblekinsman, i do agree that there is a general (condescending) surprise that comes when people hear AAs who speak ‘standard’ english. to take an example from television, part of why the cosby show was such a big thing was because it showed two upper middle class professionals and how they were ‘just like us’ – highlighting the fact that standard stereotype of AAs tends to be of a community that is lower-incomed, lesser educated, and improperly dictioned.
The issue was not whether he’s articulate, but rather the actual timbre and tone quality of his voice, which, as far as I know, has nothing to do with anyone’s perceptions of race. And, given that pretty much everyone in Washington butchers the pronunciation of “Pakistan,” I think it’s fine to give a hat-tip for that (although that is NOT the main point of this post). I feel the same way re: pronunciation of Iraq. As my friend says, “If you’re going to bomb the country, at least learn how to say its name correctly.”
Also, re: cab drivers and blackness, I don’t actually want to get into it, but I think Obama actually brings up a good point regarding the inherently racist logic behind the idea that African immigrants (and their descendants) are not “Black.” A friend of mine (Nigerian) expressed the same thing in college. Up until her junior year she would correct people and tell them she was African (not to be anti-Black, but because she was trying to enlighten others). Finally she realized that, to an extent, the idea of being Black also comes from an outside perception of who you are, and no one on the street cares if your family are African immigrants — to the layperson, you’re Black. I think this is what Obama is getting at. While we may be used to desi cab drivers, there are quite a few, I’m sure, who aren’t desi and still see him as a black guy. 🙂
If she’s nominated, I’m sure this will come back and bite her in the ass.
And please, enough with your insinuations. No one said “he speaks so well for a BLACK PERSON”. You said that. No one here was so inappropriate or condescending, and to suggest it is offensive.
It’s okay to like someone’s voice, whether that person is Gregory Peck, Barry White, or Obama. It’s okay to notice the little things, like how someone pronounces the name of a country, especially if they do it so well, that it’s surprising. None of these things should be invalidated.
If we could explore this just a little bit. I would disagree here. In the popular mind, the perception of ‘sounding black’ is not just about ‘accent’, grammar, vocabulary, ‘stammer’, articulation – or lack thereof – it is also partly about the timbre and tonal quality of the voice. As an example, I would say that James Earl Jones and Bernard Shaw (who asked the question of Dukakis that Anna referenced) have the tonal quality that many people think only ‘black’ men have, or can have.
I would like to think that tone and timbre – both in range and quality – are evenly distributed across all ethnicities. But in the popular imagination, it is believed that black men have distinctive timbre. That may be from prejudice and stereotyping, or from drawing conclusions from biased samples, etc. Or there may be some truth to it. But in either case, the fact is that tonal quality and timbre do factor into people’s perception of race. So any kind of commentary on Obama’s voice – and how he uses it – occurs in the background of perceptions (and prejudices) of this kind, and can easily be misconstrued.
But chachaji, how do you explain Gregory Peck, then? 😉
I see where you’re coming from, I just think that this post has illuminated a range of people (ethnically and professionally) who have “soothing” or “distinct” voices. Just my opinion.
I don’t mean to go too offtopic but that is so true.There are some voices that are unmistakable and define a generation such as Ameen Sayani’s voice , which is instantly recognizable for generations of DBDs. Besides Gregory Peck: Sean Connery and Morgan Freeman too have distinctive voices that lend themselves so well to narration. I always believed that part of Meryl Streep’s mystique is her voice : how she modulates it and enunciates dialogue adds to the performance everytime
I don’t mean to go too off topic but that is so true.There are some voices that are unmistakable and define a generation such as Ameen Sayani’s voice , which is instantly recognizable for generations of DBDs. Besides Gregory Peck: Sean Connery and Morgan Freeman too have distinctive voices that lend themselves so well to narration. I always believed that part of Meryl Streep’s mystique is her voice : how she modulates it and enunciates dialogue adds to the performance everytime
SMIntern:Apologies for the duplicate post – please delete 🙁
i think he’s mostly compared to rfk, nvm, b/c of their similar stature and outsider image. JFK was skinny once too but the tons of drugs he took to battle addison’s disease and a host of other ailments (including venereal disease…he lost his virginity to a hooker, which is irrelevant i know but i like to keep things entertaining) bloated him, especially on the face…if you look at pictures of him when he was a congressman and then during his presidency you’ll see the abnormal bloating. all obama needs now is his own marilyn monroe.
i got this from doris kearns goodwin’s “the fitzgeralds and the kennedys.” great read, despite being Kaavyed.
Another super-sexy politician, although a bit more meat on his bones than Obama.
Ok, I’ll stop. I know this was supposed to be about substance, not how I swoon over Gregory Peck’s voice or why I think RFK is sexy. Runa, agreed on Sean Connery, although it’s hard for me to find his voice soothing because I always think of Jeopardy! 🙂
So its Obama’s Presidential voice vs. Hillary’s electable cleavage I am sooo excited!
articulateness is an important presidential criterion. bush’s lack of it has hurt him greatly, as camille paglia predicted early on. he’s incapable of giving a rousing cogent defense of the war, something that blair does extremely well.
reagan, churchill, fdr all benefitted from articulateness. although i was listening to some churchill speaches yesterday and it is obvious that he was sloshed (churchill started drinking at breakfast).
Obama looks.. odd. No not becos he’s black etc, in fact some older black gentlemen are high on the personality scale.. this guy looks odd. NOT charismatic enough to be a president. Does not look knowledgable enough. looks too young, and unfortunately, trivial. Does not have what they call, ‘presence’.
I’m confused; are you superficially dismissing him because of his looks or his personality?
Sorry, I missed giuliani’s shining bald head
Here’s more on this whole Pakistan exchange from one of the best political journalists/bloggers, Josh Marshall. (Marshall founded the TPM blog emprie, which is probably the best investigative political blog out there — they broke, among other stories, the US attorney/firing scandal.)
giuliani’s got a lisp. that would be a first. then there’s the drag thing. which explains this.
If there’s one person from that era that Obama superficially reminds me most of, it’s Malcolm X.
Amardeep, good point. And unfortunately, in both cases, he was made to look naive by folks equivocating. Hillary’s argument that she wouldn’t meet evil dictators without extensive prep was a little shallow. No president would invite Castro before the administrations did a whole bunch of work. And like someone here pointed out, Dodd/Clinton don’t disagree with him, they just won’t say it out loud; which sounds little condescending to me. Pakistanis already don’t trust their president and think he is a US puppet.
Do the criticisms of Obama re: his Pakistan statements take it as implicit that the “problem” with them is violation of Pakistani sovereignty? If so, I’m dubious–it seems to me that the attacks would either be morally justified or not (under, e.g., just war theory). “Sovereignty” seems like an empty formalism (and a statist one at that–like the supposed “international law” rule that you can kill all the drafted soldiers, but can’t assassinate the enemy leadership).
On the other hand, the criticisms of Obama might take it as implicit that (net) bad consequences would be expected from such attacks. That might be. But it bothers me that the anti-Obama criticisms seldom seem to get down to brass tacks on this point.
Josh Marshall’s take at TPM http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016379.php
Sorry Amit, by “people” I meant the media. I realized you were joking. =) Thanks everyone for the Hillary-Barack Punjab name-calling… I didn’t know that Hillary “started” it.
Divya, no apologies necessary. I just meant to clarify my intention with the original comment as it is easy to misinterpret on the internet minus the vocal tone and facial expressions. 🙂
Hillary is Bush-lite; Obama is Hillary-lite. I’d like Nader to run again and raise the democrats’ hackles, frankly. will he make a difference? I dont know. Did he in 2000? Where are the good studies? loved An Unreasonable Man. Great to watch Moore and the rest of the silly shrill crowd do an about-face and turn on Nader in 2004 after being all pro-Nader in 2000. Short of that, and leaving aside identity-politics as a marker of progress, I will settle for…Edwards? Obama sounds less and less like he has anything substantive to say about anything. Nuance is one thing, not having clear or distinguishable policies is another.
so is he going to start pronouncing California and Colorado in Spanish and rolling his r’s ? Saying (te/haas) instead of ( tek-sÉ™s, -siz) they way americans anglicized it , baton rouge in a nasally french way? I mean how far can you take this…..he’s got a great voice but as many of know that 90% a gift of God , something we gave little to do with.