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…)
Obama has not gone by Barry since he was in Undergrad, its been a long time.
Also, Obama does not play the race card, race rarely comes up in his speeches.
The problem with Obama is that he is part of the establishment, and a member of the CFR, which is linked to and an instrument of the Rothschilds of London. He is funded by George SOROS, and advised by ‘The Grand Chessboard’ Brzezinski; the one who with President Carters backing in 1979 began covert funding of seriously weird Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan (Hekmatyar)via Pakistan’s ISI from July 1979(not Charlie Wilson as the film suggests according to reviews—a mere instrument), and over throwing the Shah of Iran in 1979, and installing fundamentalists there with British backing.
Yes a nice impressionable intelligent youngish black man making it big in America is somewhat romantic to the gullible senses, but will his Presidency be really good for 300 million Americans? The answer I am afraid is that he will not help matters in the USA. Under his possible presidency, there may be minor twigs of policy changes which may differentiate his administration from the rehab clown, but given his covert backing mentioned above, nothing spectacularly different.
Huckabee is a shape shifting religious fruitcake, getting Americans to bury their heads in the Bible when the average American really needs to think hard about what is wrong with their country.
The real choice and the only choice that will help America is Ron Paul becoming President, which is why the mass media ignore him.
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.
race matters. but i bolded the quasi-quantitative qualifiers here: i think one can admit that race will be a causal factor in shaping the dynamics of the race while asserting that the central tendency remains that obama is doing an admirable job of transcending the issue, and americans are doing an admirable job of leaving the past behind them.* i still get asked, very rarely, how long i’ve been in the united states, or get complimented on my lack of an accent. but i get asked and complimented very rarely, which is a chance from when i was a kid (and FYI, i have spent the second half of my life in much whiter environs than the first half in these united states). i don’t look any difference, but people my age and generation don’t see me as foreign. so to me it’s a glass 1/4 empty vs. 3/4 full dynamic.
Not one reference in Iowa as far as I recall…
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.
also, over the past generation there has been a symbiotic problem between white voters and the type of politicians “black america” has produced. majority-minority districts (created with the encourage of republicans who benefit, on average, from removal of blacks from moderate districts) has resulted in many black politicians becoming representatives of their community, and unable to engage in discourse with the broader electorate and affect change in the perception of white voters. obama’s diverse social background and district from which he emerged (south side, but focused around hyde park) means that he naturally has a bigger toolkit to engage with others. and also, remember, not only does have black and white family members, he has asian ones too (his half-indonesian sister is married to a japanese american man last i checked). as well as muslim, christian and secular ones.
I read on one blog that the first Irish and Italian mayors of NYC were Protestant Christians (like most of US population), even though those ethnic groups are heavily Catholic Christians. So, history tells us that accomodation/acceptance isn’t going to come in one fell swoop, even when it does (finally) come. I.e., Barack’s admirable success (I don’t believe for a second that Hillary has a “firewall” in NH, btw–she’s going down big-time) doesn’t mean the end to America’s race problem(s)–but, it is a sign of major progress, and also no doubt something of a cause of progress.
Razib, agreed, but there’s one more factor to Obama which you wouldn’t find, say, with Al Sharpton or anyone else with whom you could associate the race question: Obama is much more international. Given his childhood itself involved people from the three different countries (US, Kenya and Indonesia), and that he has spent four years growing up in another country (as opposed to fighting with another country), he does have something which the other candidates don’t. It’d be interesting to see him have a go at shaping foreign policy, which for my money would be different from what you’d get with a monochrome bread candidate.
hillary has no fire wall. she’s toast. muadib’s forces have the emperor shadam surrounded, and the spacing guild and CHOAM are abandoning him as he threatens to destroy the spice. the cold blooded efficiency of the sardaukar is nothing to the passion of the fremen.
I read on one blog that the first Irish and Italian mayors of NYC were Protestant Christians (like most of US population), even though those ethnic groups are heavily Catholic Christians.
fiorella laguardia wast he son of a jewish mother and an italian father. he was episcopalian by religion.
It really is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the above constitutes some sort of coded message pertaining to his race. The very same words could have been used by a white politician and no one would ever suggest it meant anything other than the need to bring the country together.
I don’t understand the subtext: why “take care of his family” and why Obama in particular? I suspect that it refers to some aspect of US history/society that I’m not familiar with. Could someone explain what it implies? Is the phrase related to race dynamics?
he does have something which the other candidates don’t. It’d be interesting to see him have a go at shaping foreign policy, which for my money would be different from what you’d get with a monochrome bread candidate.
he’s really an outlier in many ways. because he does not identify in totality with any specific group we can all identify with that portion of him which resembles our own circumstance. obama is likely to be our first black president, and our first cablinasian president.
pingpong, from what i have read it seems that the clinton camp is throwing around all sorts of weird shit. some of it is pretty incomprehensible, but it seems that they hope that it will get across the subtext in a random spray-fire-in-all-directions sort of manner. IOW, i think many clinton organizers will basically play whatever cards they have in attempting to claw their candidate back to the top even though they themselves don’t believe the things they say. so i wouldn’t read too much into specifics as anything besides the sewage which wafts up from political nastiness.
of course there is going a fair amount of prejudice aimed at obama from regular voters. that’s to be expected, most humans are rather tarded and can’t pick out canada on a map (or, more precisely and accurately 20% of americans [and brits] are dumb enough to accept geocentrism when offered competing models because they are incapable of thinking that deeply).
It really is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the above constitutes some sort of coded message pertaining to his race. The very same words could have been used by a white politician and no one would ever suggest it meant anything other than the need to bring the country together.
different people will naturally see different things based on their own subjective viewpoints. i think it is plausible that some people will interpreted coded messages, and that the set of these people will see and hear different messages. the ‘barack obama moment’ is not about barack obama; it is a cultural inflection point infused with emotional fervor and passion. that will drive people in different directions.
i see the site i linked to is down. FYI, she’s down in NH 37 to 27 (see the details, it isn’t technically a poll). her support is far softer than obama’s, his camp doesn’t like her, while her camp likes him. remember when antony’s legions abandoned him the forces of octavian?
Does Obama have any black advisers? I mean real close ones. I would hate for him to go the way of the Powell-Rice brigade; that most African Americans do not identify with. South Carolina should be a true test of Obama’s vagueness.
race matters. but i bolded the quasi-quantitative qualifiers here: i think one can admit that race will be a causal factor in shaping the dynamics of the race while asserting that the central tendency remains that obama is doing an admirable job of transcending the issue, and americans are doing an admirable job of leaving the past behind them.
Razib, I don’t disagree with you. I realize this is just one anecdote, but unconscious resistance to Obama’s “difference” (however it’s understood) might explain why he isn’t crushing Hillary despite the current softness of support for Clinton II. (I think people were more excited about her when the debates were coming hot and heavy… she did quite well in the debates)
I think the first half of your sentence is exactly what I’m saying in the post. That said, I do think that Obama is finding useful codewords and oblique ways of addressing those in the audience who have some kind of conscious or unconscious bias against him. So he is transcending the morass of identity politics, but cautiously — he’s not taking his “universalism” for granted.
Interesting to know that Rasmussen has him ahead of Hillary, even if it’s a non-poll. Both post-Iowa polls I’ve seen (at TPM) show her 4-5 points ahead of him.
Does Obama have any black advisers? I mean real close ones. I would hate for him to go the way of the Powell-Rice brigade; that most African Americans do not identify with. South Carolina should be a true test of Obama’s vagueness.
jesse jackson jr. the comparison with powell-rice is a weak, they are outside of the black american mainstream in terms of positions and party. obama isn’t. jesse jackson sr. has been a little begrudging with his support (the wife backs hillary); the standard explanation is that the “black leadership” doesn’t think obama has paid his dues and is “one of them.” i think it is mostly because he’s a politician who happens to be black, not a black politician. i don’t know jack about politics, but i agree with those who say that the black vote will avalanche to obama after he wins NH.
I realize this is just one anecdote, but unconscious resistance to Obama’s “difference” (however it’s understood) might explain why he isn’t crushing Hillary despite the current softness of support for Clinton II.
it might explain some of it. but i think a far larger proportion of the lead is due to fact that she had an air of inevitability and also leveraged the “clinton network.” people will fight for money or love. some of it is also due to the fact that obama hasn’t been in the national primetime for very long (the inexperience charge). a fair portion is that most americans are pretty stupid and uninformed and name recognition matters, remember the funny reality that eugene mccarthy got votes in ’68 because people thought he was joe mccarthy? or the quotes from befuddled seniors who voted for bush in ’00 because they’d “voted for him” in ’88 and ’92? i would put the discomfort factor after that (and the discomfort is both because he is ‘foreign/”muslim”/colored’ and because [from blacks] he isn’t ‘black enough’).
look at the obama trendline (real polls).
Damn, I’m trying my best to find online an entire special BBC World channel did on Barack Obama — it aired only a month ago. Does anyone here know what I am referring to? The gist of it was that Obama refused to realize that America was divided, and also that no one will vote (and not vote) for him because of his ethnicity. While all the voters interviewed disagreed. It was certainly subjective. But very well done.
I am talking of the most superficial comparison, the one that our culture revolves around. Its the visual. One non-white face in a sea of white, even if the non-white person is in the center of the picture and talks in the prescribed genteel manner , so as not to wake the neighbors.
I am tired of this Panama Canal of cultural acceptance.
neal, i don’t know what you are trying to say. you stated in comment #1: Does Obama have any black advisers? I mean real close ones. I would hate for him to go the way of the Powell-Rice brigade; that most African Americans do not identify with. South Carolina should be a true test of Obama’s vagueness.
and now you say: I am talking of the most superficial comparison, the one that our culture revolves around. Its the visual. One non-white face in a sea of white, even if the non-white person is in the center of the picture and talks in the prescribed genteel manner , so as not to wake the neighbors.
so you are asking about african americans, and then you switch to “our culture.” are you black when you speak of our culture? or do you just want to switch your argument to the generality and pretend you weren’t asking a specific question above? in any case, the non-white person in a sea of white describes me quite often, but not many non-white people. look at SM, some of the people here socialize not only mostly with non-whites, but mostly with non-whites of their race and nationality and generation (e.g., american born brownz). so your description isn’t modal, but an ideal, and a reflection of the lives of some people (me, many readers of this site as children). as for obama, he’s not surrounded by a sea of white. his most recent location was in the south side (yes, hyde park is racially diverse with many u of chicago associated whites, but it does have plenty of chocolate last time i visited in the local environs). he’s married to an “authentic black woman.”
I am tired of this Panama Canal of cultural acceptance.
i don’t know this turn of phrase. what are you trying to get at?
even if the non-white person is in the center of the picture and talks in the prescribed genteel manner , so as not to wake the neighbors.
1) that’s a caricature of obama. you’re welcome to it.
2) yes, he wouldn’t do as well if he spoke in ebonics and peppered it with swahili words and donned a dashiki. so what? we don’t live in fantasy-land here. humans are creatures shaped by group norms, and one of them is to respect the expectations of our neighbors and not be loud. it’s called neighborliness. in a fantasy-land world a politician could walk around with his pierced dick hanging out on stage as he makes a speech and we would value him only for his public policy stance. as a matter of reality a politician walking around with his pierced dick hanging out is just weird (though walking with your genitals somewhat exposed isn’t totally unknown and transgressive in all human cultures).
3) barack obama is the grandson of people from kansas. that’s a part of him too, and perhaps if you think being quiet and conciliatory isn’t necessarily not a thing typical of black people you can attribute it to that portion of his heritage (he was raised by his grandparents from kansas remember).
4) or it could be that barack obama is being himself. and americans like who he is. you and your fellow travelers excepted. welcome to democracy, you’re outvoted.
The gist of it was that Obama refused to realize that America was divided, and also that no one will vote (and not vote) for him because of his ethnicity.
obama is an idealist about kenya too. his 1995 book apparently reported his arguments with his luo relatives about tribalism and its negative affects. the reality is that tribalism matters and is salient to most people. but, perhaps kenya would be served by a leader who personally thinks it’s a load of crap? i think america might be served by a leader who also is a little head-in-the-clouds about race issues so that at least perhaps he could lead by example for those who are influenced by such things.
razib,
I do not understand you and i am not sure i need to.
Thank you for your patience.
p.s. i don’t think obama is a quiet or conciliatory black man btw. the word ‘transcendent’ is appropriate. it seems that he is engaging in an attempt (perhaps futile) of elevating, not muddling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics)#Mode_of_a_probability_distribution
aka, most frequent.
razib,
I work in neuro surgery, but i do not use every post here to indulge in neurosurgical jargon, even if the post were to be about brain surgery. I have a deep fear that I would drive away other commentrators. Besides, it comes off really dry.
Just saying.
I work in neuro surgery, but i do not use every post here to indulge in neurosurgical jargon, even if the post were to be about brain surgery. I have a deep fear that I would drive away other commentrators. Besides, it comes off really dry.
neurosurgery isn’t relevant to public policy usually. statistics is. in fact, statistics is relevant to most social science arguments. now, others have suggested that i drive away other commenters. if the principals behind SM find it troubling they can ban me or encourage me to leave the blog, but my own opinion is that if it drives away people who find statistics dry that makes the discourse less stupid. and non-stupid discourse is the main reason i’m on SM. formal definitions and terms are quite often good at smoking out the details of someone’s verbal argument when they aren’t clear. just saying.
He refers to Selma-Montgomery march at 11.14 in his Victory speech. Democrats are preferred over Repubs somewhere around 60 to 40. Let’s see if his final popular share of vote matches that tally.
razib,
I think this is where we look at commenting differently.
For you commenting = crystal clear argument For me commenting = expressing my feelings/thoughts.
Razib: I am with you on this one. From everything I have heard/ read about Obama so far, the man IS what you see and has been for a long time. Since he figured out who he was – black, white, foreign father, heartland mother, Christian, Muslim, multi-culti, whatever. His comfort in his own skin is not a new found thing. His Harvard law school buddies have attested to that. Obama’s appeal may be a bit like that of Tiger Woods. Tiger did not have to “play” black to inspire young African Americans to take interest in golf and feel pride in his achievements. But unlike him, Obama is married to a very impressive black woman.
This time the choice on the Democratic side is going to come down a lot to style over substance and Obama is the most stylish of the lot by far. I don’t know how much of a “change” Obama will really bring about but it sure will be a change from a Clinton-Clinton sequel of grotesque Twist & Tango. And given that Bush-Cheney are surely gone at the end of the year, that is change enough for most people.
I also agree on how Iowa (and hopefully New Hampshire) will affect the African American voter mindset, for many of whom Hillary was the safe choice until now. I too see an AA swarm toward Obama now. Bill Clinton warned voters that voting for Obama is a roll of the dice. He wants us to choose his tried, tested and fireproofed wife. The Billary administration worked for the nineties and looks particularly glorious in light of what happened next. But this time around Americans may well prefer a roll of the dice over the old play book of triangulation.
As for race in general, a whole generation of Americans of all races are now of the voting age who may consciously decide to jump the last hurdle in American politics which their Selma era baby boomer parents couldn’t bring themselves to do.
Here is an interesting view point about Obama’s win in Iowa and his speech.
Democrats are preferred over Repubs somewhere around 60 to 40. Let’s see if his final popular share of vote matches that tally.
two better measures
1) congressional vote vs. presidential.
2) last exit polls vs. final result.
This time the choice on the Democratic side is going to come down a lot to style over substance and Obama is the most stylish of the lot by far. I don’t know how much of a “change” Obama will really bring about but it sure will be a change from a Clinton-Clinton sequel of grotesque Twist & Tango.
i think there is some ‘game theory’ thinking which might apply here. i agree that in terms of substance obama and clinton would not intend to execute very differently (i don’t really accept the netroots perception of clinton as a crypto-republican, or that she’s more conservative than her husband). but, the response of republicans and those on the right is viscerally & emotionally very different to obama; that makes all the difference. democrats in the ’80s always complained that americans trusted reagan the man and politician but tended to not really support his policies and politics. well, how would they like a go around on that ride?
For you commenting = crystal clear argument For me commenting = expressing my feelings/thoughts.
the nature of verbal arguments are that they are never crystal clear, and much of the discussion hinges around attain some clarity of communication and conception. but point taken as to your intent; though if you are going to feel and think out loud in a public forum you shouldn’t be surprised if others respond to you in kind when they feel offended by your feelings (i was offended by your insinuations about obama and was trying to get to the root of what you were trying to say and the nature of your opinions).
and FYI for new readers, i am center-right and generally conservative in my sympathies. the fact that the republican party prioritizes the sorts of ‘conservatism’ which i don’t have much sympathy with right now is probably one reason when i feel an obvious ‘attraction’ to obama despite his positions which place him as a moderate liberal. but there is obvious a ‘pull’ aspect to his delivery, manner and the way in which he carries himself (i.e., style). i can attest that many conservatives in d.c. who i know will admit the same thing. in contrast hillary elicits a gag reflex, despite her being more conservative in all likelihood (the few neocons who basically don’t are much about social or economic issues have spoken about how much more acceptable she is, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule).
p.s. i don’t have much clinton aversion myself, just to be clear. but there is no ‘pull’ from her as there was with bill.
someday razib, you’ll have to break it out to us (I know generally your stance on immigration from Muslim countries)issue by issue. I tend to think of social issues first when someone mentions conservative sympathies but it usually ends up to be fiscal in nature.
go here. click issues. or here, or here or here. my social milieu is left-wing so though i’m arguably center-to-left i’m usually the “token right-winger.”
go here for the political distribution on the scienceblogs.com network where i contibute. i’m at the right end of the distribution…which is in the middle of the absolute range 😉
8 · pingpong said
pingpong, check out this news article…resonates with your opinions Vote Barack Obama, a global candidate for a global age
not that there’s anything wrong with that…. I think racism corresponds more closely with age than with whether one is Republican or Democrat. I would venture that this is not because youth is impetuous or gullible or nicer and kinder, but because we are all moving away in time from the presence of living memories of colonialism, which was the most internationally evident and empowered social structure built upon racism. As it recedes there are literally fewer and fewer people walking this earth who learned to say and do things to express racism with impunity, because its largest formal manifestation has been in retreat as far back as more and more people can remember.
That’s just taking liberties and being patronizing towards a black man in the way that now ancient white folks have always taken for granted. Strange that the Beeb is worried and faintly snarky about Obama. Times Online isn’t, but then, The Independent is a wee bit patronizing. Another example of how standing ideas of what is left and what is right don’t tally with that ever so unifying Obama factor. It’s hard for them across the pond, maybe, to understand the hybrid vigor and elegance of this couple and their very pretty kids, how very modern they are. I notice cartoonists here are having trouble drawing Obama because they’re not getting that his features are mixed–they’ve just understood his ears and chin at this point.
Anyway, like wonkette said, Barack’s hot, and really he’s the only candidate who is–Joe Biden was hot once, but that was a long, long time ago. Now he’s a somewhat hip and elegant gent. I think the beauty contest aspect has to do with the Head of State aspect. If Obama can forgive Biden his earlier gauchery, he’d possibly make a seriously great Secretary of State.
amrita, reread amardeep’s post. you’re facts.
Amardeep, maybe it’s possible that the audience has changed significantly as well. One, the number of young voters taking an interest in the polls struck me as significant. Perhaps their views of black, white, and race relations in general is different than previous generations. The entry over the past 25 years into the American cultural discourse of people from various ethnic backgrounds should produce ways of viewing race that is different than simply “he’s a black politician.” The campaign may be still about “difference”, but the amount of Americans’ exposure to “difference” of all sorts has changed over the years.
???????
sorry, i got cut off mid comment. you garbled the facts.
33 · Ruchira said
Sensing something historic, I made my way up to East Harlem to measure the zeitgeist. Using my patented scientific method of jawboning while tossing back some cold ones on a barstool, I can report back that an overall sense of euphoria has taken over.
When the race began Obama was viewed suspiciously, with the usual reactionaries muttering nonsense like “he’s not really black,†in apparent contrast to Bill Clinton. But a collective eyebrow was raised when the Clintons started using the “madrassa†and especially the racially coded “drug dealer†smear. Since the culprits were fired I think she could’ve gotten away with this if she didn’t follow thru by having the hapless Bob Kerrey repeat the madrassa claim, bizarrely complementing Obama by suggesting he’d be great in an outreach role to “underperforming black youth†in a Clinton admin, all the while pronouncing his name “Barrack Hussein Obama,†emphasizing Hussein. To make things worse, he apologizes using the phrase “Islamic Manchurian Candidate†in a transparent Mark Penn “the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising†sort of way. Now I kept abreast of this via Andrew Sullivan, though Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh were all over it too. But except for the Nation, the left-leaning white opinion makers were largely silent, leading me to believe this might go the way of Kerry camps attacks on Bush’s patriotism or Max Clelanding of Howard Dean, i.e. into the dustbin of history as it doesn’t fit the dominant narrative. But under the surface, while white liberals were holding their nose, blacks were seething and their affection for Obama growing.
So back to East Harlam. The bartender hands me my brew and I ask him if he had the election returns on the TV the other night. He bursts out laughing; “You missed the party, man. You missed the party. People were yelling, screaming, crying;†he went on. An older couple turned around and with a huge smile just kept repeating “I never thought I’d see the day.†Over an over again. People noticed the subtle MLK cadence in his voice, women swooned over the Michelle shout-out, and probably most importantly, people really started to believe he’s a winner.
And everyone knew about Hillary’s Willie Hortanization, although it was not news fit to print. Hillary had transformed Barack into a black man. She has a habit of doing that.
Not so, I put out interpretive ideas you hadn’t already considered.
Flippant Joe? You’re being funny aren’t you?
He’s unlikely to pluck standing senators for cabinet positions. Samantha Power is a very real possibility for State.