Obama '08?

Excerpts from an opinion piece about the Obama name thing...


…We've got crazy Christians, drug and sexually addicted Evangelicals, and Barack Obama's middle name all being thrown around in the name of all that's unholy. If it's the Christmas season it must be time for faith unhinged."

…Today's religious hierarchy would have stoned Jesus Christ himself. As for Mary, they would have shunned her as a godless, promiscuous liberal. Few have embraced Mary's importance in the church at large. It's that woman thing, the fetish in faith for all things male. The hypocrisy among conservative "Christians" is staggering. Just look at Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or the abject dishonesty of Rush Limbaugh, who says to Republican "Christians," I am one of you, though there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

…Ah yes, but the New Life Church and every other right-wing "Christian" organizations feel compelled to judge the Episcopal church and other faiths of similar tolerance for our diversity and policy of inclusion, which includes giving women a role of leadership.

But the taking out after Barack Obama for his middle name is the most heinous attack I've seen against a Democratic candidate since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked for his alleged sexual prowess with women not his wife. I guess since we have continued to hold Republican racists' feet to the fire the right-wing wacko machine has to find another tactic by which to attack the rising young Democratic star. The line being forwarded by the likes of Ed Rogers and other Republicans, if only by cowardly inference, is that Senator Obama may call himself a Christian, but he's actually a Muslim out to do the U.S.A. harm through his masquerade of faith.

…Debbie Schlussel isn't Atlas Shrugged but she is equally unhinged, though she also is not "Christian," but "Jewish." Her attack on Obama is so prejudice and loaded that the implication and inherent danger of such accusations and assaults makes you wonder if Ms. Schlussel isn't trying to do more than ruin Obama's political career. At the very least it is scandalously un-American. However, it is also an aggressive assault out of fear of Senator Obama's power with the public.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/barack-obamas-middle-nam_b_36884.html

Sure. I should not have stooped to an insult in retaliation for insults and it was not helpful to the debate. I am sorry for that. It would be nice if you would apologize for taking my comments out of contexts and twisting them into what I haven't said, when you have accused me of what I did not do, and (on other threads) have accused me of racism, but I suppose that is too much to ask?

Show me where I insulted you in this thread, and I will apologize for it. If I am not representing correctly what you are saying, show me that and I will apologize.

And your halfhearted conditional grudging apology is accepted.

Nope. I'd say disgusting is plenty fair enough in this instance. I'd have settled for idiotic, myself.

Do you really think the author's bigotry will reach anyone of consequence? I suppose so. While it could never affect a reasonably intelligent person with any ability to think critically; I realize now where damage will come from. Ignorance lends itself to ignorance. No, I guess that's not really true either and your points are becoming validated in my mind, even as I type. Too often; I display my own ignorance of just how prominent ignorance is in society at large. This, I suspect, is one of those cases and I've been somewhat in error here.

The other day I was asked to sub for a sick member of a pool (think billiards) league. During one of the matches; there was some debate about what constitutes a foul in 9-Ball: Is it enough to hit the object ball first, or does something need to be driven to a rail?. The latter is correct, and was appropriately ruled that way, but what happened next intrigued me. Half a dozen adult men squared off in heated debate, each secure in the belief he was correct. It damn near went to blows.

Meanwhile; none of these men were ever more than 10 ft. away from the League Rule Book, which clearly articulates the simple truth of the matter. Not only did none of them reach for it, they resisted the suggestion! Each confident that their respective expert always knows the answers.

This scenario has no doubt been played out countless thousands of times in bars across the country. Pool is a game notorious for having "local rules" that often are not even consistent within the same small town; resulting, I'd wager, in thousands of fractured skulls. Second hand pseudo-facts are regurgitated with the confidence of mathematical certainty.

I can easily see the same debate taking place over whether or not Obama is a Muslim. After all; so and so said so, and he knows about politics. It doesn't matter how easy it is to verify one way or another. The question "How do we know he isn't still a Muslim?" could be the catalyst. (In this situation, it would be ill-advised to inquire if the speaker is "still beating his wife", because, odds are, he is.)

It is my opinion that Debbie Schlussel understands this phenomenon only too well and is indeed playing upon the general public's inherent ignorance to advance her own political agenda, by sleazing the opposition. Pretty clever, actually, but hardly an exclusively Republican strategy. The single most effective use of this strategy I've seen to date; is Fahrenheit 911. Here, Michael Moore mixed some very appropriate slamming, vested heavily in truth, with some of the most outlandish innuendo conceivable. The myriad of threads and discussion over "the truth about 911" amply demonstrates its effectiveness.

While its also true that this type of underhanded, almost subliminal, sleazing is most effective on the choir; the above example demonstrates how it also pollutes the somewhat open even if mediocre mind. Expert is a relatively loose distinction that too frequently lends itself to disinformation. Didn't we all, at least briefly, consider the possibility that Bush really did set that up for profit? Surely the consideration left some subconscious residual doubt in many an otherwise rational thinker… as opposed to just the hyper-partisan who swallowed it sans evidence. I myself don't feel qualified to deny it with complete certainty, despite my rational opinion that those who forward the notion as likely are for the most part; hyper-partisan fools.

Consider this a concession that this sleaze tactic will have greater effect than I previously thought possible.

I already did and you ignored it.

But thanks anyway.

Obill writes


Did you ever have an essay or something else to write (say a newspaper column or a newsletter) and struggled for a topic, anything at all to say? Did you ever need to give a speech and wrestled with what you wanted to communicate? In each case, there is a professional pride involved that you want to be seen as intelligent, articulate, competent, innovative, inventive, irrisistibly interesting--in other words, God's gift to the occasion. And while few if any of us come close to achieving that goal, that is nevertheless the goal.

Schlussel's piece was definitely too over the top to appreciate and certainly speculative on so many points that she is difficult to take seriously despite her having some pretty good credentials. Her worst sins were a) pretending to be able to see into Obama's heart to discern his weaknesses, and b) her definite ignorance of Obama's faith, and c) her assumption that he would jump at a chance to be Hillary's running mate. (Anybody drawn to Islam even a little bit isn't going to park himself in the United Church of Christ of which he is a member and he is on the record as stating he is not interested in the No. 2 spot.)

But was she was furthering her own political agenda with intention to smear Obama? No, I don't think so. It's way too early and she is almost certainly politically savvy enough to know that smearing him now will blunt the ability to do so closer to the time when it will count. She has a background in Middle Eastern issues and I think she incorporated that into her column purely to have something new, different, and unusual to offer more than what everybody else is suggesting; i.e. rock star qualities coupled with inexperience that could be problematic for him.

Her column isn't much different from the "Saint Hillary" and "Hillary Gets Religion" etc. etc. etc. that we saw from both the Left and the Right in years past. Just writers trying to make their mark with something off the beaten path that didn't amount to a hill of beans but was something to write about.

But if this stuff was in her head, she is probably not the only one to think it up. Far better to get it out there, air it, discuss it and/or discredit it now rather than let it fester and then surge later on at a time that it actually could make a difference.

You said I twisted your words (and that's shaky reasoning, because I'm not the only one who interprets what you're doing with this 'Obama name thing' the way I do), but you haven't shown anything near the puerile little 'learning disabled' insult that you did.

(and I still accept your halfhearted conditional grudging apology)

In fact, if you're saying that you've shown where I insulted you in this thread, I'm saying you're lying.

Well if this one isn't an insult, I would like to see your definition of an insult even apart from the fact that you completely misrepresented what I said here too. (Not that I give a hoot. This one was mild compared to the insults you usually direct my way. )

Snood writes


But thank you for accepting my apology even as you call me a liar.

Ok. You're right - I'm wrong. I'm sorry for insulting you, and will try not to be the one who fires the next shot....

Apology accepted.

And Merry Christmas, Snood.

Ah, peace at last! And a HAPPY HOLIDAY TO ALL OF YOU!

I want to say something personal about Obama, and him being president.

If Obama were actually elected president of this country, it would deeply and permanently validate me in a way that would be hard to describe.

It would decisively and authoritatively cash that "check" that MLK referred to, when he talked about the promise of this country, always coming back marked "insufficient funds".

It would settle in my mind and heart, once and for all, one question that has been buried in the psyche of persons of color for ages. The question is "Are we truly equal?"

Race is an elusive and treacherous issue. I see polls today that reflect a deep ambivalence and widespread dissonance. People, black and white, believe race to be still a telling factor in daily life in America - but - people all believe the problem to be coming from someone else. It is never they themselves who are harboring the destructive attitudes, it is always their neighbor, or some other people, elsewhere.

If Obama were elected president, I would finally know that all the talk I hear about progress and colorblindness and the land of opportunity, etc, etc, etc, had real substance.

If Obama were elected president, I could go to my grave with an age old anxiety stilled.
I would actually be able to say to a little black boy "If you study and work hard and play by the rules, there is no limit to what you can accomplish in America." People of color still say that to their children, but if Obama were elected president, I could by God actually mean it without the lingering doubts. We see Morgan Freeman (in Deep Impact) or Dennis Haysbert (on '24') play the role, but I submit that that is something we cannot really say with conviction until we've seen it happen.

Now, I know this is a terribly narrow and self-centered way of looking at something with a myriad of other issues involved. I know I'm talking about the office of the most powerful man on this planet as if it were some kind of popularity contest at the local Kiwanis, or something.

But I just wanted to say, on this thread here about the possibility of electing that man - that black man - as President of the United States of America, that dammit, it would mean so very much...

...to me.

bill and snood

You've both just written extraordinary posts.

I'm having trouble composing my next sentence. There's something very important going on here - something very elevating - upon which both posts ride. I want to get at that in some clear and illuminating way.

I think it is about Obama. I think it is about hopefulness. And I think I'm having some trouble here because that sort of hopefulness has been so sadly foreign to political discourse in the US.

What the two of you are feeling and thinking about has arisen in the process of our consideration of Obama and of Schlussel's column. The contrast is absolutely stark and clarifying.

Fear, division, hatred, dishonesty, dark insinuation and them-versus-us is what Schlussel serves up. This is not a person, or an ideology, which favors or even wants Americans to unite or to include each other in a community of brother/sisterhood. It's goal is to exclude, to cast those of incorrect faith or culture or skin tone outside of fully valued membership in the community.

And then, there's Obama's ideas and there's your posts, bill and snood. What a breath of fresh American air.

Snood- Thank you for your honest and heartfelt statement. There have been some questions that I have been meaning to ask you, but have held back, for some time, concerned that you might find them terribly offensive. Now I can ask them, you having made your statement, and already having an understanding of what you might say.

Everything else being equal, would you be so strongly on the Obama "bandwagon", were Barack Obama white? On the flip side, what would be your stance if Obama were running against a white person whose politics dovetailed with yours more exactly?

What if the candidates were Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice running on the Republican ticket against a white person from the Democratic party whose politics were more in line with yours?

In other words, what I would like to know is, for you, how much consideration does race trump any other attribute of a candidate that you might consider?

For years, I have dreamed of a woman president. So I certainly understand where you are coming from. Now that there is a possible one on the horizon, I have grave doubts as to whether I would even consider voting for her.

very interesting post Phoenix; I ponder it. I am a supporter of Dennis Kucinich even though I support only about 50% of his platform. In some ways I guess I support his idealism and honesty (just as i did Goldwater) I will support any candidate I think is honest about his views even though I might not agree with them.

dys- I think that is why I find Obama so engaging, even though I do not agree with all of his views. His freshness and openness are so appealing, after having to listen to the jaded politicians over the years.

For me, it is MUCH to early to call!

From today's Chicago Tribune (page A2/online):

I was watching CNN and they were interviewing a Republican and Democrat. They weren't Congressmen but held positions in the party apparatus. I came in late so I didn't get their names.

The interviewer asked each one who would be the worst candidate their party would have to face. The Democrat said Giuliani. He didn't think Giuliani would win the Republican primary because of his liberal social beliefs. But if he did then he would be the toughest opponent the Democrats would have to face on the Republican side.

The Republican said Edwards is the one they feared the most. Obama, being black, would lose a lot of votes, especially in the South. My daughter lives in TN and listening to her in-laws speak you can tell there is still a strong, but subdued, streak of racism. It's not as blatant as in the past but it's still there.

Rep Goode's outburst recently is a good example of the southern conservative's ignorance, intolerance and appeal to hate and fear.

My fear is that the election "process" will leave him so battle scarred and disgusted, that he won't be the same man at the end of it. I dread that loss for his family and for the country. I hope that his senatorial election has been enough of a preliminary round for his family to have formed a very very thick wall.

It's been a long time since I last felt strongly enough about a candidate to pound the pavement for his campaign. I'm beginning to get that tingling in my feet, and it sure feels good. It will be nice to be able to vote for someone I honestly want to see win, and not just because I don't want the other guys to win. Of course, this is the kiss of death. Anytime I get excited about a candidate they usually drop out very early.

Snood, you should send your post to a few national newspapers and news programs. It is well written and needs to be heard. Send it to Oprah and Charlie Rose, at the very least.

Very well said, snood. I agree that it should see a wider audience, and perhaps be sent to Obama.