I had a moment of Obama-identification when I saw the following anecdote from the Iowa caucuses in the New York Times last night:
The Boyd household, perhaps, is atypical. She supported Mr. Obama, while her husband, Rex, walked into the caucus as a Clinton supporter. Before the final headcount was conducted, she said, he changed his mind and moved over to the Obama corner of the room.
In an overnight e-mail, she offered an explanation. “Rex went to Clinton and I wore a Obama sticker. As people milled and talked, he changed before the count as he heard people stating they could not vote for someone with a last name like Obama. One said, ‘He needs to stay in Chicago and take care of his family.’
“Rex came over to Obama, where he heard not one negative bit of talk. He felt they both stand for pretty much the same ideas, but our leader needs to be positive and Obama puts that feeling out there. That is important in this world.†(link)
There goes that ‘funny’ name again. Obama has joked about it at times in his stump speeches, but here it seems like it might really be a liability for him after all. For someone to say “I couldn’t vote for someone named Obama” is to my eye code: it’s a way of saying “I couldn’t vote for someone foreign.”
The problem of the funny name, and the association it carries with foreignness, as we’ve discussed many MANY times here at Sepia Mutiny, is a characteristic most South Asians share with Mr. Barack Obama. (He has a nickname, by the way — “Barry” — though he has admirably chosen not to campaign on it… yet).
This anecdote is a little reminder that this campaign is still, in some sense, a referendum on race and, more broadly, “difference.” Clearly, some voters (even supposedly less race-minded Democrats) really aren’t ready for a black candidate, or a “different” candidate — but as, in the anecdote above, there are also voters who are drawn to Obama for precisely the reason that others are prejudiced against him.
Obama’s difference obviously isn’t exactly the same as that which many of us contend with, of course: he’s Christian, and many of us are not (though it’s worth pointing out again that he doesn’t have a Christian name). He’s also visually and culturally identifiable to most Americans as “black,” while Desis often have the problem of looking merely foreign and unplaceable (In his second gubernatorial campaign in Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, as we’ve discussed, found a formula to get around this, but since it entailed positioning himself in some cases against the interests of African Americans, I don’t think it’s a formula I would encourage others to emulate.) Obama assiduously avoids making the campaign about race in his speeches and debates (except for the obligatory references to Selma, which even white candidates make), though I think he finds coded ways to address some of voters’ doubts about his difference after all. Take the opening of his recent victory speech in Iowa:
“You know, they said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.
But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do. (link)
When he started out this paragraph, I could have sworn he was going to say that “this day” is the day a black man overwhelmingly won a primary caucus in a state that is 95% white. But in fact, the punchline is something much more neutral: it’s the day people “come together around a common purpsoe.” Those first few phrases are in some sense code, but Obama knows better than to directly play the “racial vindication” card.
He does something similar at the end of the speech, when he talks about “red” and “blue”:
To end the political strategy that’s been all about division, and instead make it about addition. To build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.
Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges that we face as a nation.
We are choosing hope over fear.
We’re choosing unity over division, and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America.
(link)
(Obama sure is a master at vague but potentially inspiring language!)When Obama talks about bringing together “red states and blue state” and “unity over division,” it’s hard for me not to think that he’s again using a kind of code, what he really means is, he’ll bring together a coalition of of white voters and non-white voters.
Obama seems to have found a method to invoke race, and hint at his own racial difference, without making it a “problem” for white voters. (We’ll see if he can remain as subtle after running up against the Clinton “firewall” in New Hampshire…)
Anyone else watching Obama in Nashua see a dude in a red turban so pale he looked like he just emerged from a yearlong bath in a vat of Fair and Handsome?
Here he is, after much googling, under the “ba” in “Obama.”
Thanks Manju, for the “patented, scientific” survey. My own unscientific, over-the-fence & through-email vetting of my middle aged AA neighbors and friends confirms a similar trend. Those who were vacillating between Hillary and Obama, are now squarely and enthusiastically in the Obama camp.
Senator Bob Kerrey’s uncharacteristic hatchet job on behalf of the Clintons took me by surprise also, as I noted in a blog post. Why this and why now? With his own prospect for electoral office now an unlikely thing, he may be eyeing a cabinet position. Kerrey is a restless and impetuous man. Being president of the New School must have lost its shine and glamor.
Just adding to Manju and Ruchira’s “scientific” surveys, I’ve also encountered a similar reaction but for slightly different reasons. Prior to Iowa, and prior to Hillary’s recent “attacks”, the thought among some of the African-Americans I spoke with was that while Obama was a likeable candidate, they did not perceive him as electable. In essence, the thought was that due to his race, America would openly state that he was qualified and herald his entry into the presidential race, but behind the curtains at the polls Obama would never receive the “white” vote. Iowa seems to have changed that perception. (sorry for the weasel word but I don’t have a scientific poll to back it up)Interestingly, the same point regarding the african-american electorate was made by one of the talking heads on “Meet the Press” this morning. Anecdotally, a political strategist told me several months ago that his view of things was that he thought Edwards was more likely than Obama or Clinton to capture a nomination. His thought process was that Edwards was the “safer” candidate against a republican opponent and was likely everyone’s second choice between Hillary and Obama. I will have to find out whether Iowa has changed his perception.
with regards to image, do we really want a nixon-kennedy debate situation deciding between hillary and obama?
either way, i can’t trust hillary and obama’s Demer’s response was just a plain lie http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/06/obama_what_drugs_are_you_using
then again w/the rest of the candidates up there it’ll just be a new boss who’ll be the same as the old boss
51 · DJ Drrrty Poonjabi said
hey brother,
That Sardar-ji looked like a ghost! Did someone take away his Johnny Walker 😉
did anyone watch andy rooney on 60 minutes ? in his usual sarcastic manner discussed “odd” names, but included Huckabee and Giuliani ( I guess so as not to seem “racist”)
Barack Hussein Obama . . . . . this guy has the worst possible name
Barack – kinda rhymes with Borat (that iss… if you pronounce Borat CORRECTLY) name doesnt make a good impression, doesnt sound like someone intellegent even though he prolly is
Hussein – Common name in the Islamic world, probably a result of his fathers Kenyan ancestry, and unfortunately the surname of a Hated-by-America politcal family in Iraq (if any of them r still alive)
Obama – Probably one of the most foreign sounding name in American Politics, at least Schwarzenegger sounds European. and worst of all it rhymes with Osama.
POOR GUY, hes gonna lose a lotta votes for stupid things the sound of his name.
I just got back from campaigning in NH for Obama, and it was AWESOME. Amardeep, I listened to his stump speech (which has excerpts similar to what you’ve quoted), and I’m fairly confident he is NOT referring to race, but rather, to the larger underdog-campaign-of-hope-look-we’re-staying-positive-and-grassroots way of his campaign.
The sardar in the picture (at the rally at Nashua North High) is white, which is why he looks so pale. What, never heard of a white Sikh? 🙂 There were plenty of desi volunteers imported from Mass all up in the mix, as well.
Oh, and for the record, I didn’t meet a single voter (Republican, Independent, Democrat) in NH who was turned off by his name, or by the claims made by others that he was Muslim. People found all the attempts to “smear” him despicable and low-class, and I agree.
desi mom (#56), Andy Rooney is a racist old codger — I wouldn’t give anything he says any weight whatsoever. The man is an idiot.
55 boston_mahesh said
Razib wrote:
[Obama] has asian [relatives] too (his half-indonesian sister is married to a japanese american man last i checked).
No. Barack’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, is married to Konrad Ng, a Chinese-Canadian (BA and McGill, MA at University of Victoria under JimTully) and and assistant professor and the University of Hawaii.
Obama would be the first American President with close Canadian relations in at least 50 years. More than enough reason to Vote Obama.
Don’t vote for Obama! He fathered a black baby!
Rahul,
Another reason to dislike the George Bush era. What he did to John Mccain was unseemly and immoral. If Mccain isn’t the republican nominee (personally, I hope he is), one can expect a lot more of this, especially, if Obama is the democratic nominee.
62 · Rahul said
Heh Heh Heh. Can’t believe i didn’t think of that
I lost all respect for McCain after he sucked up to Dubya even after this vile slander, as well as to Falwell, going so far as to speak at Libery U’s graduation ceremony, after calling him an “agent of intolerance”. The Straight talk express seems to have taken a detour through Bullshittown.
Manju, you might not be a Karl Rove in strategy, but you can start by giving yourself a bum rap.
63 · Jangali Janwar said
george bush era? we’re seeing the Clinton’s doing it as we speak. madrassa, drug dealer, islamic manchurain candidate. before that they tried to swift boat george I by doubting his WWII hero status (i think dan rather bought it as he did the fake george II docs). just ask juanita broderick, paula jones, or kathleen willey how destructive the clintons can get, and they’re all democrats. jerry falwell’s a radfem compared to these characters.
and it doesn’t stop at clinton. it was kerry who doubted bush patriotism, not vice versa. his wife suggested OBL was caught and bush was going to spring an oct surprise. he max clelanded dean b/f cleland was clelanded himself. i think acorn was busted on some voter fraud, among other dem dirty trick, reminiscent of JFK’s tricking of nixon.
but of course nixon and bush are the dirty tricksters b/c the other stuff doesn’t fit the favored narrative.
Manju,
I never said the clintons weren’t guilty of the same slander as Mccain or that democrats were any less capable of dirty politics. And you’re right about Mccain caving to Dubya after that slander. But of all the choices on the republican side, don’t ya think that Mccain is the most moderate of the bunch. (Giuliani is not an option for me from what I know him in his time in NY). I know Mccain panders to the religious right, however, I always get the impression that he does that simply to placate them but that his personal beliefs skew more to the middle.
I want moderates to come out of both camps so I don’t walk into another election year trying to pick the better of two evils.
68 · Jangali Janwar said
i’m rooting for mccain, though i think he’s the most conservative in a reagan sort of way, with guilliani being the most authoritarian. i agree that mccain is the least likely to go dirty, though this stuff is hard to stop b/c it does often happen without the knowledge of the candidate.
it was rahul, btw, who slammed mccain for sleeping with falwell. he’s a young idealist. me? i know one has to ho themselves a little.
btw, often the more moderate politicians, clinton and nixon for example, are the dirtiest, b/c the lack principle… in contrast to the ideologues.
is that the racist, homophobic, trickle-downy, mommy-loving way?
awww, poor nice little georgie-porgy’s campaign ran away from him.
sure, and it is osama who is steadfast compared to the moderate muslims. because adherence to principle is everything independent of what the principle is. and no politician, however dirty, deserves to be compared to nixon.
Manju, my bad.
Well, I can say for sure that he did not sleep with Falwell. Falwell knew with absolute certainty at the age of thirteen that he liked girls (“in that way”), not boys, and certainly not manly men like McCain. Yeah, everybody “hos themselves a little”, but I judge a person who sells themselves on straight talk more harshly when they start pandering, and especially to poisonous characters like Falwell and Rove.