100 thoughts on “Kal Penn Hearts Obama”

1. Expect the Republicans to put an affirmative action question on the ballot in swing states and Obama will lose.

2. A N N A, i dont i can thank u enuf 4 GujuHottiee120586 & NjDe$iQTpie <3 <3 <3

3. shouldn’t kal penn be rooting for jindal, given his name. arnold, on the other hand, has more in common with obama

4. Expect the Republicans to put an affirmative action question on the ballot in swing states and Obama will lose

   You mean these?

   Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

   Of these, only Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, and Oregon can meaningfully be described as swing states. 538 currently gives Obama a 63% chance to win in Colorado, an 86% chance to win in Oregon, an even shot in Nevada, and a 23% chance in Missouri. Even if enough anti-affirmative action voters in Colorado and Nevada are motivated enough to show up on these grounds to counteract the nearly even polls in those states, Obama’s stronger ground game and the overall increased turnout might counteract them. Then combine this with the fact that this is not exactly a Republican year and McCain isn’t a particularly flashy or candidate, and I seriously doubt whether these initiatives will have much effect in these states–if it’s even close enough to come down to one or two states.

   And even if it is close AND these anti-affirmative action measures happen to have an effect that swings the states, if you take away Colorado, Nevada, and Missouri from Obama and give him some combination of Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Iowa, Montana, Alaska, etc., he can still win…easily. And in all of these there are no race-based referenda (beyond Obama himself) and which are, as it turns out in this election, swing states.

   It’s always possible that something like these referenda will have an effect, but it doesn’t seem likely to me that they would have enough of an effect to swing the whole election.

5. “with Satan with Haliburton”

   really?

6. 4 · Dr AmNonymous said

   Even if enough anti-affirmative action voters

   I thought Obama has indicated in a few instances that he is for class-based, not race-based affirmative action?

   It is really amazing that there is even a contest between these two. Obama should be sweeping all the states, not have a 296-242 split, or whatever 538 is currently projecting! I guess a lot of people are worried that once you go black…

7. i agree with dr a, especially since obama’s looking to rewrite the electoral map, with a high black turnout. while race is a fun issue, it doesn’t decide presidential politics, which is all about peace and prosperity, nonewithstanding nixon (’60) and gore not coming thru despite benefitting from the 2 biggies (and you could argue they both really won anyway).

   obama doesn’t have to really fear a southern strategy, but rather an oil bubble, if it is that, bursting or OBL busted. if both, then he’s toast.

8. I thought Obama has indicated in a few instances that he is for class-based, not race-based affirmative action?

   I’m not sure; I wouldn’t be wholly surprised. however that’s besides the point. The mechanism that I think is being proposed is that more anti-affirmative action voters would show up and then vote against a Black candidate – so his particular viewpoint on affirmative action would be less relevant than the fact that he’s a perceived beneficiary or simply that he’s Black.

   It is really amazing that there is even a contest between these two. Obama should be sweeping all the states, not have a 296-242 split, or whatever 538 is currently projecting! I guess a lot of people are worried that once you go black…

   Well, a lot can change between now and November, in either direction. Most people don’t start paying attention to the election until after Labor Day is the commonplace that I’ve heard, and the conventions haven’t started yet, etc. Wait till you see Mr. 28%-or-whatever-it-is-now approval rating waving hands with McCain and Dick Cheney up on a stage at the RNC and then see where the election goes 😉

   But yeah, presumably there’s a lot of racism in America. David Sirota has an easy-to-grasp and possibly overcomplicated model of the impact of race in the Democratic primary. The idea is basically that Obama did well in primaries where there were large enough numbers of Black people to counteract racism or where there are so few Black people that race is not as much an issue.

9. 6 · Shyam said

   It is really amazing that there is even a contest between these two. Obama should be sweeping all the states, not have a 296-242 split, or whatever 538 is currently projecting! I guess a lot of people are worried that once you go black…

   look, reagan was behind carter for most of the election, and he had double digit inflation, hostages in iran, and the ussr in afghanistan. moderates swung his way at the very end, adn it was close by pop vote.

   so obama is ahead of reagan at this point, and he’s not even going up against the incumbent who everyone blames for the war and economy.

10. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?ex=1376020800&en=c34e85d3525968e3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

    Someday I will figure out why my link thing is not working…must be some security setting.

11. 8 · Dr AmNonymous said

    David Sirota has an easy-to-grasp and possibly overcomplicated model of the impact of race in the Democratic primary. The idea is basically that Obama did well in primaries where there were large enough numbers of Black people to counteract racism or where there are so few Black people that race is not as much an issue.

    Yeah, this is a fact often missed in analyses of Obama’s wins, especially because Sirota’s analysis dovetails with Putnam’s research too…

    The mechanism that I think is being proposed is that more anti-affirmative action voters would show up and then vote against a Black candidate – so his particular viewpoint on affirmative action would be less relevant than the fact that he’s a perceived beneficiary or simply that he’s Black.

    Well, the fringe vote will probably always turn out. But, the real issue is whether Obama will blunt people who vote based on the issue of race based affirmative action – among those people, I can see some fraction being swayed by his views. In fact, among lower income whites, the grouse is not against the principle of affirmative action, just that they don’t get some of it since they are also deprived.

12. while race is a fun issue, it doesn’t decide presidential politics

    I agree that “peace and prosperity” (i.e. how well “the economy” is doing, social protest, wars, etc.) have an enormous impact on how elections are won and lost and which party wins and which one loses, but this blanket dismissal of race in what is perhaps the most racially conscious wealthy society in the world is astounding. How exactly do you think the Solid South became the Republican South over the last 36 years? Or is your argument that that did not impact Presidential politics? Either way, not tenable viewpoints to take in my opinion. Race and class are profoundly intertwined in American culture, politics, economics, etc. See, for example, David Roediger’s writing or take a look at the debates on affirmative action or look at the debates on welfare policy. Hell, just read the South Asian identity stuff that gets written in spaces like this one.

13. 8 · Dr AmNonymous said

    But yeah, presumably there’s a lot of racism in America.

    yeah but racism is not black and white. someone may vote fro obama but still not want his daughter to date a black guy.

    the obama as foreign manchurian muslim candidte was a powerful meme, but he survived it during the primary. October surprises need to be well, surprises, its going to be hard for mccain to play the race card b/c its been played. he’s survived the muslim rumors, rev wright, drug dealing, etc. he got wacked but it won’t have the same effect the second time around.

    so we;re left debating whether or not the paris hilton ad plays into fears of miscegenation. i know, some die hard clintonites are still clinging to a whitey tape and something about his birth certificate, but seems unlikely.

14. I seem to recollect a Abortion right based question on the ballot in Ohio 2004. Person voting against Abortion rights will not vote for Democrats. I will search and link.

15. Apparently, the only racists left in America who will not vote for Obama are “die hard clintonites”. Everybody else? Voting on the issues!

16. How exactly do you think the Solid South became the Republican South over the last 36 years?

    I think the southern strategy was played, but its effect overrated. it gets so much attention b/c its a hotbutton issue, but the dems abandonment of hawkish anti-communism, the rise of the new left and their redistributionist policies, in a land where socialism is a dirty word, certainly had a lot to do with it. not to mention abortion and gun control. also consider racism was on the wane as the republicans picked up the south.

17. 14 · DesiInNJ said

    I seem to recollect a Abortion right based question on the ballot in Ohio 2004. Person voting against Abortion rights will not vote for Democrats. I will search and link.

    questions like the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage and the abortion issue played a larger than expected role in the elections

    http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/631/ (man, I can’t believe I am linking a communist party site)

18. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?ex=1376020800&en=c34e85d3525968e3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Someday I will figure out why my link thing is not working…must be some security setting.

    DinNJ – not denying the impact of race. It might in fact be the best explanation for why Obama is not trouncing McCain right now, given that Paris Hilton has done a better job making a case for herself than McCain has so far (as far as I know she didn’t lift any of her energy plan from wikipedia).

    And of course there’s the possibility that people are lying or simply deceiving themselves when they answer polls. However, there are literally hundreds of polls at this point, including actual primary results, and we can at least try to guess exactly how much race MIGHT impact the election, even if we can’t be certain, the way things stand today (which is a big if–e.g. a successful terrorist attack does who knows what–probably nothing good).

    However, I’m optimistic? After all, Obama needs to win the same states that Kerry won + 1 or 2 more. All else equal, a Democratic candidate would do that easily.

    But I’ll be voting for McKinney 😉

19. But!… Anna was saying that thing about Secret Muslim, not Race, isn’t it?

20. Dr A. I may move overseas if McCain wins, but you can never ever underestimate strategic republicans. They may not know how to run a Country but know how to win elections. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-rutten26-2008jul26,0,2021472.column

21. yeah but racism is not black and white. someone may vote fro obama but still not want his daughter to date a black guy. the obama as foreign manchurian muslim candidte was a powerful meme, but he survived it during the primary. October surprises need to be well, surprises, its going to be hard for mccain to play the race card b/c its been played. he’s survived the muslim rumors, rev wright, drug dealing, etc. he got wacked but it won’t have the same effect the second time around.

    I think the real difference is that Obama/Kal Penn/Hillary Clinton are part of a new multiculture elite whose glass ceilings are between the penthouse and the floor below at this point. So they have the elite stamp of approval – and now the question is whether the rest of the country will give it too. For which I would advise them to start talking about economics.

    so we;re left debating whether or not the paris hilton ad plays into fears of miscegenation.

    What is the debate? It quite obviously does, and anyone who tells you otherwise is simply in denial. But I think that attempting to pin racism on “die-hard Clinton supporters” and assuming that the general electorate will have LESS is absurd. It makes no sense on the basis of party affiliation. These people (who I would guess are largely but not exclusively older White women) are the 2nd wave feminist type – and if they were THAT racist, they would either have supported an independent candidate, chosen to vote for McCain or switched parties. I see very little evidence of that, nor do I expect to. The McCains+undecideds, as a whole, is probably more inclined to not vote for a Black person, than Clinton’s supporters were, if I were to hazard a guess.

    I think the southern strategy was played, but its effect overrated. it gets so much attention b/c its a hotbutton issue

    Do you professionally rewrite history or something?

    Philadelphia, county seat of Mississippi’s Neshoba County, is famous for a couple of things. That is where three civil rights workers — Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman — were murdered in 1964. And that is where, in 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan chose to launch his election campaign, with a ringing endorsement of “states’ rights.” It was bitter symbolism for black Americans (though surely not just for black Americans). Countless observers have noted that Reagan took the Republican Party from virtual irrelevance to the ascendancy it now enjoys. The essence of that transformation, we shouldn’t forget, is the party’s successful wooing of the race-exploiting Southern Democrats formerly known as Dixiecrats. And Reagan’s Philadelphia appearance was an important bouquet in that courtship. I don’t accuse Reagan of racism, though while he served, I did note what seemed to be his indifference to the concerns of black Americans — issues ranging from civil rights enforcement and attacks on “welfare queens” to his refusal to act seriously against the apartheid regime in South Africa. He gets full credit from me for the good things he did — including presiding over the end of international communism. But he also legitimized, by his broad wink at it, racial indifference — and worse. His political progeny include Trent Lott, who got caught a while back praising the overtly segregationist 1948 presidential candidacy of Strom Thurmond, and, I suspect, many Lott soul mates in the current Republican congressional majority.

    and there’s this:

    In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model – that of direct support for Southern opposition to desegregation. This strategy cost them the outer South, but gained them the Deep South. It also severed the party from blacks, and that proved to be permanent. On the other hand, by getting 48.7 percent of Southern votes, Goldwater became the first Republican in history to do better in the South than the North. And the South’s share of the national vote rose to 17.4 percent. Nixon played a careful version of the Southern strategy in 1968, combining Ike’s class strategy with Goldwater’s racial appeal. In 1968, riots in northern cities had nationalized the race issue – so it was possible to gain Northern as well as Southern votes by a mild racial appeal. George Wallace took all the Goldwater states except South Carolina (led to the Republicans by no less than Strom Thurmond) while also taking Arkansas. Johnson was able to deliver his home state of Texas to his vice president, Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey got a big infusion from the newly enfranchised black vote, while losing the great majority of Southern whites and running third behind Nixon and Wallace in the Southern popular vote. The South split into almost equal shares for the three candidates, but Nixon’s national margin came from his edge over HHH in the section. And the enfranchisement of blacks coupled with the counter-mobilization of blacks took the South’s share of the national vote past 20 percent for the first time since 1876. Nixon Seeks Wallace Vote It was the desire to win the Wallace vote that shaped a large part of Nixon’s policies and even more his rhetoric in the next four years. After Wallace was shot in a Maryland parking lot, while the Democrats nominated George McGovern, Nixon’s task was done for him. He carried the South with an astounding 71.3 percent of the vote, getting more than 10 million votes there – more than twice as many as 1968. And he did more than 10 percent better in the South than in the rest of the country.

    Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon…I mean cmon. It’s one thing to say that this is no longer a primary strategy (which is more arguable), but it’s quite another to simply pretend that it never happened and “other” factors were far more important. All elections and social trends have different factors involved.

22. Dr A. I may move overseas if McCain wins, but you can never ever underestimate strategic republicans. They may not know how to run a Country but know how to win elections. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-rutten26-2008jul26,0,2021472.column

    DinNJ, I already moved overseas, and I should have done it sooner. By all means, get the hell out if McCain wins. I get free healthcare now. As many latenight tv ads may have told you, past performance is not always indicative of future results 🙂 Think of it this way – Gore and Bush essentially tied. Kerry barely lost to an incumbent Bush in the middle of a war and three years after a huge political boon for Bush, however tragic it was for the country. All of these strategies (and much much more) were used in those two elections.

    What has changed in the last four years that would indicate that the trend favors Republicans? The Secretary of State of Ohio is now a democrat, so you can cross off the disenfranchisement there. Florida doesn’t matter as much in this election. The governor of Pennsylvania is a Democrat. The governor of Michigan is a democrat (albeit an unpopular one). The economy has tanked, the credit bubble has popped, gas prices are through the roof. The Democrat, while Black, is fairly conservative by the historical standards of the last three decades and in comparison to, say, European politics, but is extremely charming and is a fairly good though not perfect politician (purely in terms of political skill) with excellent turnout operations. The Republican candidate is extremely old, can’t keep straight the different forces in Iraq, flies off the handle, has called his wife a c@#t, and recently got caught plagiarizing wikipedia in a major policy statement and got successfully shown up by Paris Hilton in the same month. He also is allegedly distrusted by the same base that you’re saying will show up to vote against Obama for not being conservative enough.

    So it’s possible that the United States electorate is as racist/homophobic/misogynistic/fundamentalist/crazy as you think, but not only would it have to be that for Obama to lose this election, it would have to be willing to act on that against a candidate that is backed by large swathes of not just the middle class, but the rich as well, and is extremely charismatic. It’s a bit like the perfect storm – could happen – but am i going to bet on it? No.

23. I’m surprised at the examples of selflessness he seems to inspire. I’ve rarely seen it in politics, whether it’s new college grads donating their tax refunds to the campaign (instead of Apple) or veteran legislators offering to go door-to-door in a state which isn’t even their own; people are giving more of themselves than I would expect.

    Sigh. What about 88-year old women voting for their candidate from a hospital or old men voting for the first time in 20 years or 11-year olds selling all their earthly possessions to donate money to a candidate, or 13-year olds using up two years’ worth of savings to travel out-of-state and volunteer for their candidate instead of going to Disneyland, or galvanizing more people to support them than have in the ENTIRE HISTORY of this country’s presidential primaries?

    Media spins per what makes a good story. The Barack-o-mania made for a good story then. They chose to ignore John Edwards & his shenanigans. They chose to ignore the great energy and vibrancy in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the fabulous support she had and the passion she engendered – because it didn’t fit the narrative.

    They spin, we follow?

24. 21 · Dr AmNonymous said

    What is the debate? It quite obviously does, and anyone who tells you otherwise is simply in denial.

    Well, that’s not very convincing. I certainly didn’t see it and I’m sure most people watching didn’t. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it…

    Anyway, I think its important to realize modern racial theory, which takes its cue from literary studies (think deconstruction and post-colonial studies) are, like poetry interpretation, is highly subjective. there’s ascholr that believes the great gatsby was passing for black and column in the NYTImes argued that Batman I was anti-semitic. The newest one is also a paean to GWBush. The evidence these people gather is actually astounding but at the end of the day it was not the intention of the author. but the author is dead, we are told, and its just a collective conscious at work thru the subconscious.

    so now, timothy noah informs us that skinny is code word for black. bob herbert sees phallic symbols in the paris hilton ad. elitist means uppity and orlando patterson sees D. W. Griffith in the 3am ad.

    and i’m not saying these interpretations aren’t plausible, just that in politics we need proof of the intent of the author. most people aren’t even aware of these symbols and its unclear whether their subconscious reats to the word “skinny” or seeing a black man with a blonde women. Oh, i’m sure progressive race theorist react violently to especially that last image. but i wouldn’t be surprised if the rest of us have moved on. most people just see a cigar.

25. 23 · Chevalier said

    They spin, we follow?

    Just to be clear, when I wrote this:

    I’m the least-in-love-with-Obama person I know (I’m an independent), but I will type this— every once in a while, I’m surprised at the examples of selflessness he seems to inspire. I’ve rarely seen it in politics, whether it’s new college grads donating their tax refunds to the campaign (instead of Apple) or veteran legislators offering to go door-to-door in a state which isn’t even their own; people are giving more of themselves than I would expect. That’s…something, isn’t it?

    I’m referring to two people whom I know IRL who donated, not something I read in the news. One is a friend, one a family member…the Kumar Barve thing I witnessed, live, at yesterday’s event, so that was why I felt like such examples of “selflessness” were remarkable, at all. But I understand exactly where you’re coming from with your general point about the media and spin.

26. Dr AmNonymous :

    DinNJ, I already moved overseas

    Peoples Republic of Nepal? PTR has a fresh canvas to work with there. Take Vijay Prashad, Biju Matthew to round out cabinet

27. 21 · Dr AmNonymous said

    But I think that attempting to pin racism on “die-hard Clinton supporters” and assuming that the general electorate will have LESS is absurd.

    Re the die hards. I was talking about specific october surprses, that the clinton camp (wolfson, i think) alluded to at the very end of clintons campign. specifically, there is suppossed to be a video of micheele obama saying whitey adn there are some issues about his birth certificate. both rumors originated with Larry johnson, and unhinged clinton supporter, and are deeply ingrained within the PUMA movement.

    see for yourself.

    and assuming that the general electorate will have LESS is absurd

    well, again, very convincing. my argument is that the big guns have been fired and won’t have the same effect the second time around. with mccain at the helm, in comparison to clinton, i wouldn’t be surprised if there was less, but time will tell. so far, so good.

28. timothy noah informs us that skinny is code word for black. bob herbert sees phallic symbols in the paris hilton ad. elitist means uppity and orlando patterson sees D. W. Griffith in the 3am ad. racists

    I don’t really buy the miscegenation claims – even though McCain eagerly hired the guy who coughed up the Harold Ford miscegenation ad for Bob Corker, to make this ad. But finding the most hysterical folks – like Bob Herbert and Orlando Griffith – smacks of knocking down a strawman.

    Although I’ll admit – it is easier than dismissing the impact of the southern strategy and racism for Republican electoral success, or for the fact that McCain is even sort-of in the race with Obama despite being obviously incompetent in a variety of ways – foreign policy (“Iraq-Pakistan border”, “chase Osama to gates of hell” – but not apparently into Pakistan), energy, economy (his quote was “I don’t know shit about economics” – I paraphrase, of course), and of course, his inability to defend any of his various claims about Obama when actually asked in person – which means he needs to let his hatchet guy make weak jabs about arugula and Honest Tea.

    It boggles my mind that, in your mind, the last vestiges of racism in America are only to be found among “die-hard clintonites”. Sure, they tried a couple of pathetic and disgusting scare tactics, but these are nowhere as entrenched and prevalent as in the Republican election machine over the last couple of decades.

    Oh, and Chevalier, whatever the complaints, Clinton lost the primaries. It’s done. Got to move on. Whom would you rather have as president in the next four years – Obama or McCain, if you want to further policies that Hillary supports? (It is hubris to think that a McCain election now will guarantee a Hillary presidency in four years, and even if it did, would you really want McCain as president?).

29. 23 · Chevalier said

    They spin, we follow?

    I wonder how the American public would do with Mendis. Maybe there is hope for a successful American cricket team after all…

30. but it’s quite another to simply pretend that it never happened and “other” factors were far more important

    pretend it never happenned? I said the precise opposite. other factors more important? Yes.

    But finding the most hysterical folks – like Bob Herbert and Orlando Griffith – smacks of knocking down a strawman.

    Well, they are people of great stature.

    It boggles my mind that, in your mind, the last vestiges of racism in America are only to be found among “die-hard clintonites”.

    that would be boggling. which is why i made sure not to say it.

31. 30 · Manju said

    Well, they are people of great stature.

    Well, so is David Brooks (“of great stature”, I mean). Doesn’t mean they don’t see stupid things. And Orlando Patterson did that as much as 17 years ago! That’s a career.

    that would be boggling. which is why i made sure not to say it.

    Oh good. I thought only the clintonites would neither vote for Obama, nor let their daughter date a black guy, and that everybody else was nuanced in that they only disliked the latter.

32. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it…

    Still fell 😉 This is ridiculous. A lot of political ads rely on code, images, etc. – if that kind of communication didn’t work, the advertising industry wouldn’t exist. And sometimes, it happens even without intent, even with opposite intent (e.g. when John McCain gave that speech in front of the green banner and it made him look old and staid).

    It’s one thing to say that postcolonial and literature theorists make unconvincing arguments at times, but it’s almost willfully ignoring reality to deny the validity of deconstructing a message as a way of understanding things or that cultural memes exist or that texts exist apart from the author. Given the cultural tradition of the U.S. and the cues that are used constantly to invoke particular ideas (like “The Black man is coming to get your White woman”) to deny that this was part of what was going on in the Harold Ford “call me” ad, the Willie Horton ad (which never aired), the McCain ad with Hilton and Spears, is more of a stretch than to establish the argument to the level of rigour that you’re asking for. You don’t have to like it, but it does happen a lot.

    It is, as you say, a matter of perspective, but then, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? When we see a picture of England-educated barrister Gandhi in sanyasi clothing, we know that it communicated a particular set of ideas (which he also vocalized in a way)-similarly, when Barack Obama disavows Jeremiah Wright or John Edwards repeatedly mentions that Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian or McCain uses imagery that invokes fears and ideas that go back to AT LEAST Birth of a Nation, well, it’s damn well near implausible to believe that there aren’t political calculations involved designed to communicate both overt and under-the-surface messages, whether or not they succeed with you or anyone else in particular. These people aren’t dumb; I mean, just read Mark Penn’s strategy memos from the primaries.

    Peez out, I’m done for the night, to the relief of many non-wonky types I’m sure 🙂

33. 28 · Shyam said

    the fact that McCain is even sort-of in the race with Obama despite being obviously incompetent in a variety of ways – foreign policy (“Iraq-Pakistan border”, “chase Osama to gates of hell” – but not apparently into Pakistan), energy, economy (his quote was “I don’t know shit about economics” – I paraphrase, of course), and of course, his inability to defend any of his various claims about Obama when actually asked in person – which means he needs to let his hatchet guy make weak jabs about arugula and Honest Tea.

    shyam: you can’t universalize your own opinions and conclude when people don’t agree with you racism must be the factor. to many, sen mccain is a war hero, a man of great integrity and moderation in government for a long time. he was right about the surge and he’s more experienced.

    i’m not saying these beliefs are accurate, but rather they are widely held, even among prominent dems like kerry and clinton who have gone on record saying similar thngs about mccaian. even bill clinton conceded mccain would be the strongest candidate.

34. The David Brooks comment was about his ridiculous comment about elitism.

    In any case, McCain’s ad whining that Obama is too popular to be liked by more than 50% of the voting public (!!!! – I am still parsing the logic of that ad) actually seems to be working, so maybe, Americans are not racist, just demanding that their candidates be unpopular. Hopefully, McCain will not slip up and have an accidental crotch shot when he forgets to wear his Depends while getting out of his limo.

35. 26 · louiecypher said

    Dr AmNonymous :

    DinNJ, I already moved overseas

    Peoples Republic of Nepal? PTR has a fresh canvas to work with there. Take Vijay Prashad, Biju Matthew to round out cabinet

    What is your problem dude? Leave me be, as well as the people I blog with. Done. Finished. Over.

36. 33 · Manju said

    you can’t universalize your own opinions and conclude when people don’t agree with you racism must be the factor. to many, sen mccain is a war hero, a man of great integrity and moderation in government for a long time.

    You are righ. I was hallucinating. 99.98% people who vote for McCain are “voting on the issues”. The 0.02% of them who are racists are crypto-Clintonites.

37. 32 · Dr AmNonymous said

    It’s one thing to say that postcolonial and literature theorists make unconvincing arguments at times, but it’s almost willfully ignoring reality to deny the validity of deconstructing a message as a way of understanding things or that cultural memes exist or that texts exist apart from the author.

    strawman, dr a. willfully ignore? deny vailidity? which explains why i said “i’m not saying these interpretations aren’t plausible, just that in politics we need proof of the intent of the author.” and “The evidence these people gather is actually astounding.”

    I was reacting to your bombastic claim: “What is the debate? It quite obviously does, and anyone who tells you otherwise is simply in denial” which treats a school of thought deeply imdebted to relativism and subjectivity like a natural science.

38. 36 · Shyam said

    You are righ. I was hallucinating. 99.98% people who vote for McCain are “voting on the issues”. The 0.02% of them who are racists are crypto-Clintonites.

    well, look at it this way. to most conservatives carter was a dismal failure (inflation, iran, afghanistan) but yet he ran neck and neck with reagan. why? most people didn’t see the world the same way a conservative does.

39. 38 · Manju said

    but yet he ran neck and neck with reagan.

    Neck and Neck?. Are you talking about the fact that there was a 10% popular vote spready between the candidates? And the fact that Carter won as much as a whopping 9% of the electoral college (that’s not a typo, it was indeed single digits.)

    most people didn’t see the world the same way a conservative does.

    Yes, conservatives were beleaguered all through the 80s and through the 2000s (From your comment, I am assuming you are calling record deficiters like Reagan conservatives.) It must have been tough being a repub in those times.

40. “Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame. I’ve already had an hour and a half. I mean, I’m so overexposed, I’m making Paris Hilton look like a recluse.” —Barack Obama

    Clearly, the Senator was using imagery that invokes fears and ideas that go back to at least to the Birth of a Nation, perhaps in an attempt to win the pro-interracial dating vote. It quite obviously does, and anyone who tells you otherwise is simply in denial.

41. 39 · Shyam said

    Neck and Neck?. Are you talking about the fact that there was a 10% popular vote spready between the candidates? And the fact that Carter won as much as a whopping 9% of the electoral college (that’s not a typo, it was indeed single digits.)

    I was referring to the polls, as we are now:

    For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

    but yeah, a ten point gap is not insignificant in a pres race. the electoral collge is skewed and not an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

42. I’m referring to two people whom I know IRL who donated, not something I read in the news. One is a friend, one a family member…the Kumar Barve thing I witnessed, live, at yesterday’s event, so that was why I felt like such examples of “selflessness” were remarkable, at all. But I understand exactly where you’re coming from with your general point about the media and spin.

    Well, not to belabor the point, but you were at an Obama fundraiser, so the anecdotes would all be about how Obama inspired people. The examples of selflessness he seems to inspire are hardly rare or unusual, but to hear people go all through 2008 you’d think the Kalki Avatara himself had taken birth.

    And to the other point being discussed – please, if the Paris Hilton ad was racist, what was this?

43. 39 · Shyam said

    Yes, conservatives were beleaguered all through the 80s and through the 2000s (From your comment, I am assuming you are calling record deficiters like Reagan conservatives.) It must have been tough being a repub in those times.

    you lost me. the reference was to conservatives being gobsmacked over the close polling during reagan-carter, 1980.

44. 42 · Chevalier said

    Well, not to belabor the point, but you were at an Obama fundraiser, so the anecdotes would all be about how Obama inspired people.

    Well…not to belabor anything, either, but neither of those people were there…I’m talking about people I know, doing things privately— that’s why it made such an impression on me, someone who used to work on campaigns.

    These weren’t apposite anecdotes trotted out for the crowd. 🙂 Kumar Barve was there and speaking publicly, sure…but my friend? And cousin? They had no idea I’d blow up their shit on this blog. 😉

45. 41 · Manju said

    For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

    Must have been the Bradley effect. The average white man must have not wanted to admit in public to supporting Reagan to avoid being seen as a racist.

46. 42 · Chevalier said

    what was this?

    Chevalier, not to be too subtle about it: But I didn’t see a “I am Barack Obama and I approve this message” at the end of the ad. Rather, I saw this:

    Turns out Obama himself might not be too keen on Ettinger either. He told the Associated Press earlier this week that his own daughters became upset with the risqué video, saying, “You do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families.”

    There are legit criticisms to be made of how Obama portrayed Bill Clinton’s legacy (arguably fair game in a campaign), and they were sneaky about how they accused the Clintons of playing the race card (more nasty; and to be fair, the Clintons did give him fodder with their surrogates’ response to the Drudge photo, and to a lesser extent, with Hillary’s 60 minutes interview where she unnecessarily equivocated – clearly, against her better instincts, because she initially gave the firm response of “no, he isn’t a Muslim”), but I really didn’t see him overtly or covertly exploit misogyny.

    I can see how you are upset that Hillary lost, but at this point, it is clear that Obama is the candidate that represents progressive ideals and values. Not McCain. And this is especially true if you are worried about misogyny – what with his jokes about Chelsea (she looks ugly, Janet Reno must be the father), rape and other jokes, offering his wife up to the equivalent of a girls-gone-wild drunken bash, dumped his crippled first wife for a young heiress, and most substantially, is against choice, and is even against legally ensuring equal wages for women.

    It’s not love, pure logic and calculation should want anybody who is against misogyny to keep McCain out of office.

47. 46 · Shyam said

    Hillary’s 60 minutes interview where she unnecessarily equivocated – clearly, against her better instincts, because she initially gave the firm response

    No, it was the first response that got her into trouble; ““Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says.”

    The last sentance sounded like what people say whan they don’t belive someone but want to appear generous. Kroft caught it and asked her again, giveing her a chance to be unequivicol, and only then came the famous “as far as I know.”

    i report, you decide.

48. 41 · Manju said

    For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

    One: Carter was the incumbent, and they usually have an advantage (I mean Bush won in 2004, after all). Two: Reagan was perceived (not incorrectly) as a mimbo, and that didn’t help him in the least – btw, the Phil Hartman sketch where he plays Reagan is pure genius. (It is only the Meese machinery set up during Reagan’s time that has made the Repub election machine so formidable in the 2000s now, they didn’t have that kind of apparatus during Reagan’s time.)

    Not in the least analogous to Obama-McCain, where McCain is not the incumbent nor is Obama considered dumb – although I guess McCain’s whining about Obama being too loved is showing some signs of paying off. I think the repubs have squeezed the 9-11 and Iraq well mostly dry by this point, and t he only patriotism questions left are quibbling about whether Obama says the pledge before campaign meetings, wears a flag pin, or puts his hand on his heart.

49. Oh crap, I’m SpongeBob

50. 47 · SpongeBob said

    No, it was the first response that got her into trouble; ““Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says.”

    Well, right after, she said: And, as you know, there is no reason to doubt that. But she had no excuse to fall into the trap by equivocating when her interviewer set when he repeatedly – and unnecessarily – obsessed with the question. I report, you decide.

    CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
    
    KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
    
    CLINTON: Right. Right.
    
    KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.
    
    CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
    
    KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
    
    CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time. [Emphasis added] 
    

    Want to complain that Clinton’s answers contained too many qualifiers, while at the same time acknowledging her initial response? That’s fair game. And that’s what New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof did on March 9, when he noted, “When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television interview a week ago whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim, she denied it firmly — but then added, most unfortunately, ‘as far as I know.’ “

    But to set aside Clinton’s denials and suggest that “as far as I know” captured her entire response is patently dishonest.