The race card timeline and accusations of racism
Some people have pointed out that Obama’s remark suggesting that the McCain campaign would attack him by saying “he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on the dollar bills” was preceded by a John McCain ad entitled “Seal” that placed Obama’s face on a dollar bill, and therefore it wasn’t Obama who dealt the race card, since he was just responding to the McCain ad.
The ad can’t be found among the ads on the McCain website, but until proven otherwise I’ll take You Tube’s word for it that it was an official offering from the McCain campaign. Here it is:
So here we do indeed have an ad putting Obama’s face on a bill, as well as on Mt. Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty. But the ad was placed on You Tube on June 27, 2008, about a week after this explosive story came out, revealing that Obama had designed and used a new and personalized version of the Presidential seal.
It is clearly this particular act of hubris—one of Obama’s first, but hardly his last—that is being mocked in the ad. The ad starts with Obama’s seal and then takes his egotism to new heights of “what’s next?” There is no mention of race except for the undeniable fact that Obama is a black man, hardly something a photo of Obama can avoid conveying.
Far from indicating that Obama shouldn’t be President because “he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on the dollar bills,” (and what’s up with this word “other?” Is Obama already President?), the ad is saying “Obama’s ego knows no bounds, and the Presidential seal faux pas is an indication of more of the same to come. He’s taking on the trappings of a Presidency without ever having earned it.”
After an initial denial, Obama’s campaign stated that race is part of what Obama was referring to when he made his “dollar bill” remark. It’s puzzling, however, that neither Obama nor any of his aides seems to have cited the McCain “Seal” ad as the impetus for his remark (if you can find such a statement, please put the link in the comments section; I’d like to see it). If the McCain ad was Obama’s motivation, why not say so? And the absence of the ad on the McCain website—which seems to show the rest of his TV and video ads—is also odd. I have no explanation for either omission, and if someone can shed some light on this I’d welcome it.
Relevant to the entire “who dealt the race card first” argument is the fact that the Obama camp has been slyly dealing what one might call “the race card card” for quite some time now, not only against McCain but even in the primaries against the Clintons. Obama himself made a previous statement on the subject before the McCain “Seal” ad ever appeared, back on June 23, 2008. I wrote a post at that time quoting a remark Obama had made at a Florida rally [emphasis mine]:
It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
So, is the “Seal” ad racist by the mere act of using Obama’s photo to mock his arrogance and hubris? If so, then this Presidential race (oops, I used the “r” word!!) has truly gone into a sort of twilight zone in which no one is able to mount any sort of campaign against Obama, even using his own character flaws against him, without being accused of racism.
To recap: use Obama’s photo, and you are emphasizing that he “looks different.” Therefore, you’re a racist. Mock his overwhelming and fully demonstrated arrogance, and you’re really calling him an “uppity n-word.” Mention that this almost uniquely inexperienced candidate is unready for the responsibilities of the Presidency, and you’ll find (as Hillary did) that you’re a racist as well. And as for putting any blond white ladies in the same universe as Obama—well, obviously, you’re playing on centuries of sexual fears of the black man.
Just to show how absurd it’s gotten, please take a look at this offering from Timothy Noah in Slate. As far as I know, Noah is not a journalist ordinarily given to paranoid flights of fancy. But he is now asserting, in all seriousness, that a WSJ piece by Amy Chozick questioning whether Obama’s skinniness might be a political liability is actually racist.
I kid you not. This is beyond parody; it is demented.
Let’s follow the twistings and turnings of Noah’s mind as he insists that his assertion of racism is not ridiculous:
I firmly disagree that a racial reading of Chozick’s story is “ridiculous,” and I would counter that any failure on Chozick’s part to recognize such is just a wee bit clueless…
Let’s review the basics. Barack Obama is the first African-American to win a major-party nomination for president of the United States. African-Americans are distinguishable from other Americans by their skin color. This physical attribute looms large in our nation’s history as a source of prejudice.
The promise of Obama’s presidency, in many people’s minds, is partly that America will move toward becoming a post-racial society. It’s pretty clear, though, that we aren’t there yet. When white people are invited to think about Obama’s physical appearance, the principal attribute they’re likely to dwell on is his dark skin. Consequently, any reference to Obama’s other physical attributes can’t help coming off as a coy walk around the barn.
Got it? Good. There’s more where that came from:
It might be argued that body weight differs from certain other physical characteristics (apart from skin color) in that it has never been associated with racial caricature. Chozick wasn’t asking (and, I feel sure, would never ask) whether Americans might think Obama’s hair was too kinky or his nose too broad. But it doesn’t matter. The sad fact is that any discussion of Obama’s physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that’s most on their minds. Moreover, Martin points out, “The black male body has been commodified in this country from its earliest days. People were brought here for their bodies.” Better either to leave the whole topic alone…
So, any reference to any physical characteristic of Obama is racist, because the only thing “typical white people” see when they look at a black person is that blackness. Although, if white Americans are as obsessed with race as Noah seems to think they are, how could they ever forget Obama’s race even if his body were never mentioned by the opposition?
That is never explained in Noah’s convoluted reasoning. After all, since Obama himself uses his own photo in his ads—wouldn’t this also remind people that (gasp!) he’s a black man?
What’s next? Is McCain to be banned from mentioning Obama at all?
That’s better.
As Thomas Sowell said last week:
“Anyone who is honest with himself and with others knows that there is not a snow ball’s chance in hell to have an honest dialogue about race.” Link at Thomas Sowell
I think McCain could safely charge Obama as follows:
Then again, maybe not.
Neo:
On your main page, the links for “I wrote a post” and
“this offering from Timothy Noah” are truncated (even though they are complete on the comment page).
FYI
neo,
A certain post above really should be stricken from the record. He should be invited to go back to the DailyKos and get out his feelings to his heart’s content over there.
When the Left has legions of people uttering such fulminations, I fear for the nation and its future.
Oh, I don’t know, Fred, it seems reasonable to suggest that “Jonathan” is emblematic of the REAL reason I won’t vote for Obama. And did I mention he’s white?
…at least as much as he is black….
Johnathan – Did you forget your meds? Be careful, or the men in white suits might come back.
I was just going to suggest that “Jonathan”‘s post remain as an example of the vaunted “enlightened tolerance”, but I see it has been sanitized already.
Too bad.
Actually, the comment from “Jonathan” seems to be a visitation from my dear old troll (very droll, isn’t he?) “stevie” from Toronto.
Check out
this morning’s Boston Globe editorial. Two-sentence summary: Playing the race card is a distracting sideshow. Any suggestion that Obama is not up to the job is akin to calling him an “uppity” negro. Not kidding.
Stevie! They must be proud of you up there in Toronto!
Bigot.
Paris Hilton
Hay, you got third candidate are you ready to vote for her!
The Hilton ad is really funny
It is kind of hard to move beyond race if Obama’s people will not stop yammering about it 24/7.
Clearly, if McCain doesn’t vote for Obama this November, it’s because he’s a racist.
Let me get this straight. A post racial society is one where a black man’s character can never be questioned for its content?
Modern liberals are obssessed with applying value to people according to their heritage. Racist one and all.
And speaking of heritage, this line from Timothy Noah in the article quoted by Neo is ridiculous:
“‘People were brought here for their bodies.’ Better either to leave the whole topic alone…”
Obama was not brought here for his body and neither was anyone he is descended from. In fact, the true story is just the opposite, his father was brought here for his mind – to attend college. Obama is a first generation African-American in the truest sense. There is no history of slavery in his family whatsoever.
“Let me get this straight. A post racial society is one where a black man’s character can never be questioned for its content?
Modern liberals are obssessed with applying value to people according to their heritage. Racist one and all.” by SteveH
Give that man a prize. Best comment on the board yet. This where things are right now. When they keep plying the electorate with the race issue, they are only exposing to everyone a key psychological strategy: play on da white man’s guilt.
Who the hell with any brains at all if falling for that shuck and jive?
This only works if you care about being called a racist.
It’s so blatant a manipulative scam that there’s no need to even defend yourself. Everybody knows it’s a scam. Nobody thinks you’re a racist just because some political hack says you are.
To add to what Richard states:
25 Reasons You May be a Racist [Peter Kirsanow]
The tendency of Obama supporters to see racist impulses behind every criticism of their candidate has evolved into absurdity. Now even the first black president feels compelled to declare he’s not a racist. By this measure, nearly every American is at risk of being branded a racist at some point in the campaign. To assess whether you’re at risk just consult the list below ( apologies to Jeff Foxworthy ):
1.If you think Obama’s the most liberal member of the senate you…may be a racist.
2.If you object to Obama raising your payroll, capital gains and estate taxes you…may be a racist.
3.If you’d prefer a president have at least some foreign policy experience you…may be a racist.
4. If you’re in favor of drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants you…may be a racist.
5. If you think “Vero Possemus” is Latin for “Massive Ego” you… may be a racist.
6. If you wonder why Obama was hanging around William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn you…may be a racist.
7. If your pastor is nothing like Rev. Wright or Father Pfleger you… may be a racist.
8.If you don’t want the majority of justices on the Supreme Court to be like Stephen Breyer you…may be a racist.
9. If you’re not impressed with Obama’s 100% NARAL rating you…may be a racist.
10. If you’re not sure whether Obama opposed or supported FISA reauthorization you…may be a racist.
11. If you don’t think America is a “downright mean” country you…may be a racist.
12. If you think Obama should’ve visited wounded troops at Ramstein and Landstuhl you…may be a racist.
13. If you think the surge is working and that’s a good thing you…may be a racist.
14. If you oppose racial preferences in employment, school admissions and contracting you…may be a racist.
15. If you think “we are the change we’ve been waiting for” is a line from a Monty Python skit you…may be a racist.
16. If you prefer that a president have a smidgen of executive experience you…may be a racist.
17. If you’re appalled that Obama voted against treating infants born after an abortion attempt the same medically as other infants born alive you…may be a racist.
18. If you were proud of your country even before Obama’s candidacy you…may be a racist.
20. If you don’t think American troops are just “air raiding villages” you…may be a racist.
21. If your grandmother isn’t a “typical white person” you…may be a racist.
22. If you don’t think rural, working class people are bitter and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” you…may be a racist.
23. If you’re not sure invading Pakistan is a particularly good idea–what with their nuclear weapons and all– you…may be a racist.
24. If you don’t want the president to meet without precondition with the leaders of state sponsors of terror you…may be a racist.
25. If you don’t care how Hollywood or the European elite think you should vote you…may be a racist.
Article from National Review Online.
Actually, the comment from “Jonathan” seems to be a visitation from my dear old troll (very droll, isn’t he?) “stevie” from Toronto.
Your admirers are legion, Neo. Or at least, their personalities are.
Richard Aubrey Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 10:06 am
This only works if you care about being called a racist.
It’s so blatant a manipulative scam that there’s no need to even defend yourself. Everybody knows it’s a scam. Nobody thinks you’re a racist just because some political hack says you are.
*************
No, but if you attend a racist church for over 20 years and financially support its racist pastor, you might just be a racist!
Shields and Brooks sort of discussed this Friday. Shields confounded the issue by bringing up a racist pin but offered no date. He did offer this doozie:
“I mean, the charge yesterday that Obama had introduced and played the race card was so over-the-top by the McCain campaign. I mean, it was truly — it boggled the mind. And it went beyond any concept of rationality.”
This was a most unusual segment for that show IMO. Interestingly, on July 11 Shields said this
“Every day. I mean, this is not about the Pledge of Allegiance, Jim. It’s not about, you know, Willie Horton. I mean, this is a big-time election. I think that’s part of it. ”
So it would seem that at that time, well after the Obama statement of June 20, “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me: ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. … Oh, and did I mention he’s black?'”
Shields at least did notice some egregious behavior by McCain.
Brook’s strategy was ti say as little as possible and discourage those who wanted to talk about this:
“But to talk about it in the midst of this day by day, you know, YouTube to-and-fro is just going to demean whoever does it.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/sb_08-01.html
correction:
Shields at least did [not] notice some egregious behavior by McCain.
No, but if you attend a racist church for over 20 years
How come you call it church when they behaving as a racist place?
But the fact you can see full Black church of full While church, this just to saw you how you society a racist society even in God House!!
“No, but if you attend a racist church for over 20 years
How come you call it church when they behaving as a racist place?
But the fact you can see full Black church of full While church, this just to saw you how you society a racist society even in God House!!”
**********
What?
The term “racist” lost nowadays any meaning. It can denote almost everything – that is, specifically denotes nothing. When language became corrupt beyond repair, how we can have honest debate in the topics, where no exact words left unscrewed?
Racism used to be judging things or people as innately superior or inferior based upon their skin color or genetics.
Now racism means “social inequality” and “identity”. If you aren’t of a certain identity, like black, and you work against your class and race interests, then you are racist and working for racists.
Bill Clinton was the first black President because to identify with black people meant you were black because doing good things and having black skin is synonymous.
No longer are people judged solely on their character or actions anymore. Now you are judged based upon identity politics. If you aren’t part of the communal and Big Brother identity, then you may be racist.
This also means blacks and what not inside the religion of liberation churches, can never be racist.
Ymarsakar Says:
…This also means blacks and what not inside the religion of liberation churches, can never be racist.
***
Well, of course this is the propaganda that the liberal machine attempts to implant in society and our brains.
But it is nonsensical post-moderism on the face of it. Quite clearly, if you lump people into racial groups and then villify the groups based on race, that is racism.
This is what Obama’s church esposed for over twenty years. As a donating member in good standing, he was endorsing racism with his dollars.
But I think you know all this – you were simply outlining the liberal propaganda clearly.
“What?”
That took a few minutes of thinking, but I think I can translate:
“How can you call it church when they are racist?
The fact you can see a Black only church or a White only church just to shows you how your society is a racist society even in Gods House!!”
I only know of a VERY few white or black only churches – most tend to be mostly (or even in some cases purely) one way or another but it is through choice of the parishioners. I’ve been in several all bakc churches with friends and felt fully welcome and they have been to the church I used to go to and they felt welcome there. There are, of course, some that are insular and try and stay within their race (it would be hard for a white person to go to Obama’s old church) but they are the exception, not the norm.
About the only religion’s churches (or I suppose Mosques) I have ever been around that is almost totally insular were Muslim – with them or out. The ones that were friendly were VERY few and far in between. There are a handful of christian denominations that way also.
I think we have to drag out all this nonsense into the sunlight to point out that the problem with electing Obama is not a problem with black people, it’s all these idiot liberal lefties (such as the people writing this stuff) who will go to Washington with him….
You may have forgotten what they’re like, but read up right here for a quick reminder…
Can we / you stand four years of listening to these people? Or being forced to since they control the government and have actual power?
Now you are judged based upon identity politics. If you aren’t part of the communal and Big Brother identity, then you may be racist.
Ohhhh you can call them CERTIFIED LAIRS race.
Is correct that story that CIA had sparates WC for Blacks and another for Whites till 1990!!!?
If by WC you mean “water closet” or bathroom, then no, this is goofy.
Stuff like that ended in the late 50s in the Northern US, or worst case 60s.
I have never seen anything like that since the very early 60s, and I have lived in the DC metro area (and been in any govt offices) for about thirty years.
OriginalFrank Says:
“Stuff like that ended in the late 50s in the Northern US, or worst case 60s.”
Southern. Never heard of such stuff in the North or West.
Some northern places in the 50s (I saw as a young child) had separate drinking fountains, and the south I presume in the 60s (was gone before I saw much of the south in the late 70s).
THE RACISM RED HERRING …
If Obama can get Americans to base the election on racism,
then it will take their attention off the fact that he has no experience,
no credentials, and no issues.