Here’s a nifty trick: Obama says that Republicans will use his race against him. They’ve haven’t, of course. So Obama is here calling Republicans racist for something they haven’t done. He’s not waiting around to use his race as a shied; he’s launching a preemptive attack with his sword.

Also note, the end of the story mentions his Philadelphia speech, and the only comment on it is that it was “widely praised.” The fact that he’s since gone back on the actual substance of that speech, and that it now looks ridiculous, is unimportant; it was widely praised at the time. I’m getting a feeling that’s how it’s going to be with an Obama candidacy.

Apollo posted this at 9:45 AM EDT on Saturday, June 21st, 2008 as Journalism, Race, Audacity of Hype

No Comments »

The Times of India likes Obama, noting that he’s “more universalist than American.” The One True Conservative™ sees nothing wrong with this.

But you may not mention Obama’s race, unusual background, or heavy foreign connections as a negative.

Apollo posted this at 8:14 PM EDT on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 as Race, Audacity of Hype

1 Comment »

Tom may be tired of Trinity stories, and it may be that the whole country is tired of Trinity stories, but that ought not justify the way that the press is simply letting this story slide. Less than three months ago, the whole country was beat about the head region with the fact that a presidential candidate had given an amazing speech, a speech worthy of history, a speech of a statesman. In that speech, Obama stood by his racist preacher, he stood by his racist church, and he had the audacity to lay his race problem at the feet of the country. Now, in the face of political pressure, Obama has abandoned his preacher, and he’s abandoned his church, but he’s yet to admit what he’s personally done wrong.

The guys over at Powerline have amassed some amusing links of people who got tingles in their legs when Obama gave his Philadelphia speech (though none are as delightful as this Andrew Sullivan post, which should get some sort of award).

I posit that there is precisely one reason Obama’s resignation from his church is not a bigger story. Journalists are unbelievably embarrassed at what fools this experience has shown them to be. So many supposedly skeptical people fell hook, line, and sinker for Obama’s ruse. They were wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong, wrong^∞. It’s unsurprising that his complete retreat from such a major speech is not the major story it ought to be. Why would journalists like to remind people of this episode? Aside from hurting their preferred candidate, it also hurts them.

Addendum: I see that the gushy Mr. S. has decided, after a few days, has found the time to write about Obama negating his Philadelphia speech. Ask yourself if he’d offer this sort of understanding for a white evangelical church that chose to involve itself in politics.

Apollo posted this at 12:10 AM EDT on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 as Journalism, Race, Audacity of Hype

1 Comment »

Someone over at The Root is getting cranky about the government trying to put a smile on Martin Luther King:

If we had an accurate historical memory of King, then we would realize that he was a militant, radical, extremist, and he was called a terrorist. But over the years, we have allowed King, the radical visionary, to be turned into King, the dreamer. We have allowed the confrontational fighter to be depicted as a peace-making conservative. We have watched quietly as the fiery orator has been recast as merely an eloquent motivator. This man who called for systemic change has become someone who wanted a few reforms.

That is, I believe, correct. America, though, is the country of the radical bourgeoisie, not the radical proletariat. The Founders faced sincere skepticism at the idea of democracy because of the experiences of the ancients, where democracy had turned either into the rule of the poor mob seeking to use the power of government to take money from the wealthy, or the rule of the wealthy who were smart enough to use their money to bribe the mob. The notion of a democratic republic governed by a wide-spread middle class was and remains radical.

Martin Luther King has an awkward position in all of this. He was a figure of the middle class who attempted to help the mob gain for themselves what they truly deserved. But there is a catch there; giving the mob enough power to take what belongs to it, but keeping the mob from taking what rightfully belongs to others is perhaps the trickiest play in all of politics. I’ll go out on a limb and say that it has never been done. The nature of the mob is that once they have captured an inch, they develop a taste for the mile.

Toward the end of his life, King was nearing this crucial juncture. Amidst all of the new programs of the Great Society, he was about to lead a march on the Capitol demanding more government assistance for the poor. This is what The Root writer is talking about: activism without end. If there’s injustice, march against it!

That’s not what America is about, of course. A republic of constant activism is no republic at all, it is merely a collection of citizens waiting for the mob to destroy it all. The business of the American people, on the other hand, is business. If we can spare time to right a wrong we will, but non-stop activism is as anathema to the American character as Communism or cricket: Yeah, a few weirdos will like it, but not the sort of people we build statutes to on the National Mall.

So we’re back to King. Not the King who could have been, but the King who was killed in 1968 and frozen in the American mind as a champion of racial equality. I’ve never read anything from King’s later period to suggest that he wouldn’t have followed (or led) the civil rights movement down its farcical path in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. We wouldn’t honor that King, and it’s very rare to see anyone except radicals and professional activists quote King after 1966.

The statute on the Mall is meant to honor the King who spoke to hundreds of thousands from the Lincoln Memorial about racial equality, not the King who spoke to a few hundred from the Lorraine Motel about economic equality. The Root writer is probably correct that the real King wouldn’t be smiling, but the King we’ve decided to honor would be.

Apollo posted this at 3:02 AM EDT on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 as Amer-I-Can!, Race

2 Comments »

This anti-Obama screed is worth reading. In particular, it refreshed my memory of the South Carolina primary, when Obama gave speeches telling supporters not to be “hoodwinked” or “bamboozled.” At the time, those words seemed very odd to me, and I thought they had a racial connotation that I couldn’t put my finger on. Turns out I was right, though this writer attributes it to a movie I’ve never seen:

But, while he remained silent about the allegations of racism, he gave speeches across South Carolina that warned against being “hoodwinked” and “bamboozled” by the Clintons. His use of the phrase is resonant. It comes from a scene in Malcolm X, where Denzel Washington warns black people about the hidden evils of “the White Man” masquerading as a smiling politician: “Every election year, these politicians are sent up here to pacify us,” he says. “You’ve been hoodwinked. Bamboozled.”

By uttering this famous phrase, Obama told his black audience everything it needed to know. He was helping to convince blacks that the first two-term Democratic president in 50 years, a man referred to as the first black president, is in fact a secret racist. As soon as I heard that Obama had quoted from Malcolm X like this, I knew that Obama would win South Carolina by a massive margin.

No one reported that connection at the time, and I haven’t heard him using those words since South Carolina.

Apollo posted this at 1:19 AM EDT on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 as Race, Audacity of Hype

1 Comment »

Here’s a piece in the Post about Obama campaigners encountering a few racist incidents. I would have no objection to the story, except for this:

The bigotry has gone beyond words. In Vincennes [Indiana], the Obama campaign office was vandalized at 2 a.m. on the eve of the primary, according to police. A large plate-glass window was smashed, an American flag stolen. Other windows were spray-painted with references to Obama’s controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and other political messages: “Hamas votes BHO” and “We don’t cling to guns or religion. Goddamn Wright.”

Both Hillary and McCain have made issues out of Jeremiah Wright, Hamas’s endorsement, and the clinging comment: Bigotry in they eyes of the Post. If you’re aware of how those attacks are racist, other than they’re aimed at Obama, please let me know.

Then later in the story, the Post reporter reads minds:

Pollsters have found it difficult to accurately measure racial attitudes, as some voters are unwilling to acknowledge the role that race plays in their thinking. But some are not. Susan Dzimian, a Clinton supporter who owns residential properties, said outside a polling location in Kokomo that race was a factor in how she viewed Obama. “I think if it was somebody other than him, I’d accept it,” she said of a black candidate. “If Colin Powell had run, I would be willing to accept him.”

So this woman just said that she’d vote for Colin Powell (who has significantly more experience than Obama), and the Post reports that as her admitting that race was a factor in her not supporting Obama? Huh? The Post reporter needs to actually quote where the woman said that race was a factor instead of paraphrasing, because this makes no sense. If this woman read the story, I have a feeling there’s a cranky letter to the editor in the works, because that sounds like a misquote to me.

Just to make sure everyone’s following me here, the purpose of the Sword and Shield Watch is to document instances where the Obama campaign or its media supporters attempt to use race for Obama’s political advantage, either as a shield to block attacks by labeling them racist, or as a sword to claim a) that his race is a positive qualification or b) that those who oppose him are racists.

I posit that the Obama campaign will cause a significant setback in race relations because of this unfortunate tendency to use race as a sword and shield. The campaign will conclude with a stark choice: elect Obama, or have every news outlet (domestic and foreign) label the country as racist for rejecting him. Hence I think it’s worth compiling these stories long before we get there. I’ll try not to make it daily, but I can’t predict how frequently these will pop up. When I started reading the Post piece, I wasn’t expecting to find the graph I posted above.

Apollo posted this at 2:04 PM EDT on Tuesday, May 13th, 2008 as Race, Audacity of Hype

No Comments »

Only an eeeeeevil Rovian would ever, ever, in even the slightest hint of a way, make race an issue in this campaign.

Unless it helps Obama. Then if we can’t see that Obama’s race is beneficial to us, it may be time to call off the whole democratic experiment because we’re a bunch of bigoted xeonphobes who can’t be trusted to elect Obama. Rove rove rove!

ROVE!

Apollo posted this at 2:31 AM EDT on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 as Race, What Ever Happened to Andrew Sullivan?, Audacity of Hype

1 Comment »