Obama appeals to blacks to save him
Charles Blow of the NY Times writes that Obama is now trying to rally the black vote to come out for him, based not on his record, but on racial solidarity:
…[A]ds, on black radio and in black newspapers, simply extol their audiences to “stand with President Obama.”
These ads aren’t about policy. They’re personal appeals on behalf of the president. You don’t have to be engaged to get it. This November you’re voting for Obama, again.
Blow himself is black and an Obama supporter, so I assume he’s not just trying to smear Obama or accuse him of racial pandering. And he thinks the strategy just might work. As Obama told a largely black audience at Bowie State University, a historically black college: “Don’t make me look bad, now.”
Ah, how the “post-racial” president has fallen. It makes political sense, however, for him to use one of his strongest assets, the strength of his continuing support among black voters, to try to motivate that group to get to the polls.
Note, also, that Blow begins his column with the usual knee-jerk assertion about racist Republicans:
The president and fellow Democrats have taken a page from the Republican playbook. They’re unabashedly using racial-solidarity politics to animate voters.
The racist Republicans—it’s a meme that won’t die.
From the start, Obama has carefully used accusations of racism to explain those who oppose him. I first noticed it during his presidential campaign, and I wrote posts about it in June and then again in August of 2008. Here’s what I wrote in June:
Barack Obama, the candidate who wants to end divisiveness, and who wants to run a clean and honorable campaign without negativity, said the following in a recent campaign speech at a Florida fund-raising reception:
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?”
We have here a truly masterful attempt to flames of paranoia on the part of his followers and adopt the mantle of victimization for himself, thus raising rather than lowering the amount of divisiveness and vitriol in the campaign. Pretty good for just a couple of sentences.
Obama is correct in saying that there have been racist remarks against him. These have originated from fringe elements and/or commenters in the blogosphere and/or anonymous email campaigns. They focus on his “funny name,” for example, or the fact that he’s black.
But in this speech he appears to attribute””or to encourage his supporters to attribute””these charges to the entire Republican Party, couched as a threatening “they.”
It’s easy to forget some of these details of Obama’s campaign behavior, since so many dramatically distracting events have transpired since. But when he was running for president, Obama used the “Republicans are racist” accusation early and effectively and purposefully and explicity. Later, he was content to let proxies (including the compliant journalists of JournoList) carry on the torch.
Charles Blow and other Democrats in the press are still doing it, and Obama is looking to blacks to save the party in 2010. Why? Because it’s almost all they’ve got now.
Reminded of an old joke: A fellow is dining at a restaurant in Vienna. While scanning the menu, the waiter says, “I recommend the Wiener Schnitzel.” Customer thanks him and continues looking at the menu. Waiter says, “I really recommend the Wiener Schnitzel!” Customer: “Why, is it especially good?” Waiter: “No, it’s all we have.”
Really quite a shock to read that very first sentence of Charles Blow’s article. I’m trying very hard to think of any instance where Republicans used “racial solidarity” to animate voters. At this stage, if somone splutters a little spittle, the charge is assault and hate speech.
And even if one did, as many do, believe the Big Lie that it was Republicans who lynched and Jim Crowed blacks; and it was the Democrats who sponsored and pushed through the civil rights litigation; even if one did believe that . . . Charles is speaking of the immediate present–not the 1960’s– and characterizes the practice of appealing to race for votes by the Republicans as so ubiquitous that it’s “in the playbook.”
Simply disgusting.
1. Blow’s thesis is unconvincing because conservative voters were demoralized in 2008. Even if black turnout remains at 2008 levels–and black defections from Obama are negligible–, conservative turnout should rebound.
2. If Obama dumps Biden in favor of a female VP (Clinton obviously comes to mind), the theme of his reelection campaign might be an attack on white males.
And if Palin or Jindal or both is on the GOP ticket, the Left won’t even skip a beat.
Unabashed racism apparently boils down to an insistence on common sense governance while being white. Lol.
Minor quibble: Shouldn’t that read “fan the flames” or something like that?
It’s amazing to me that anyone still thinks that white people are the ones who have a problem with racism in America. Over the past few decades we have bent over backwards to repudiate antiquated ways of thinking, to the point where we say “n-word” while blacks feel perfectly free to say the real thing. Yet it seems that many blacks still fully expect to meet fire hoses and Dobermans if they so much as stick their heads out their front doors.
And has everyone seen Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez’s Spanish language campaign ad where she castigates her Vietnamese opponent’s attempt to take away “our” seat?
No, it isn’t whites who are the racists nowadays. It’s everyone else, apparently.
“Historically black” colleges and univs remain hugely, overwhemingly black because AAs want it so. All except one or two are totally taxpayer-funded. It’s a self-segregating dodge, a shelter against true level-field equality, because when they look in their mirrors, they know they’re not up to that.
I had a technical temp, black and female, from CA, some years ago. And thought of offering her a permanent position until she gave me to understand that any criticism, any, of her work would be seen by her as bigotry.
Alcorn State “Univ” in MS is one example. The school’s few prominent alums are, or were, in the NFL. Its continuing claim to fame is the “Dynomite” marching band. Alcorn awards Master’s degrees, too!
If this seems intemperate, it is; I am utterly sick of the BS.
Your second paragraph begins with with:
“Blow himself…”
Yes he can!
Heavy black turnout aka massive vote fraud?
Excuse my mean-spirited, suspicious mind.
With most blacks it’s all about race. They don’t want equal opportunity. They want equal results. Given that most elections have a margin of less than 10%, if blacks all vote one way, they pick the winner. Whites in the South figured this out decades ago. The answer is to vote the other way. That’s how states with large black populations in the South can elect Republicans. Whites in the North haven’t figured it out yet.
Iowahawk’s version: (satire based on an ancient computer game)
YOU ARE IN AN OVAL OFFICE. YOU ARE BEHIND A DESK. YOUR APPROVAL HEALTH IS 55%. YOUR CONGRESS HAS 31% HEALTH. UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE FOREST IS 8.9% YOUR FRIEND AT HARVARD IS ARRESTED BY POLICEMAN.
>CALL POLICEMAN STUPID, PLAY RACE CARD
I’M SORRY, THAT DID NOT WORK. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
>BEER SUMMIT, BLAME BUSH
YOU ARE IN AN OVAL OFFICE. YOU ARE BEHIND A DESK. ON THE DESK IS A TELEPHONE AND A TV. THE TELEPHONE RINGS. IT IS COPENHAGEN. YOU DO NOT GET THE OLYMPICS FOR CHICAGO. A PEASANT ON TV FROM CHICAGO CALLS FOR TEA PARTY REVOLT. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
>NATIONALIZE HEALTHCARE
I’M SORRY, THIS NAME WILL NOT WORK. DO YOU WANT TO CALL IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT?
>REFORM HEALTHCARE
YOU WILL NEED A CONGRESS AND SENATE TO “REFORM HEALTHCARE” IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
>TELL CONGRESS TO REFORM HEALTHCARE
YOU ARE IN AN OVAL OFFICE. YOU ARE WITH GENERALS. AFGHANISTAN IS GOING BAD. IRAN IS BUILDING NUCLEAR BOMBS. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
>PLAY GOLF
YOU ARE IN AN OVAL OFFICE. ON THE TV ARE TOWN HALLS. AT THE TOWN HALLS ARE PEASANTS. THEY ARE YELLING AT YOUR CONGRESS. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
>ATTACK PEASANTS
WITH WHAT?
>MEDIA
WHAT WEAPON?
>RACE CARD
THE PEASANTS ARE NOW ANGRIER. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
>ATTACK PEASANTS
[etc.: see rest at his website; it’s hilarious]
Proof positive, if any were needed, that Obama is a moron.
He appeals to blacks to support him? How about appealing to Michelle?
Doesn’t this idiot realize the people he needs are the undecided voters? Moving black support from 98 to 99% doesn’t help him. (Yeah, I know the counterpoint is that he’s making a GOTV case, but my point remains.) He’s scratching where it doesn’t itch, but is apparently too stupid to figure that out.
“Smartest guy in the room.” Right.
Tom
“Historically black” colleges and univs remain hugely, overwhemingly black because AAs want it so. All except one or two are totally taxpayer-funded. It’s a self-segregating dodge, a shelter against true level-field equality, because when they look in their mirrors, they know they’re not up to that.
That depends. I know of a school principal who was so bad that 40% of the staff signed a greivance against her one year. Her contract was not renewed. She went on to get a Ph.D — those who can’t administer teach?- and now teaches at a historically black college with a graduation rate of less than 20%. Sounds like an example of the Peter Principle.
Graduation rates at historically black colleges are lower than for flagship state universities, for a variety of reasons. The graduation rates are improving. While historically black colleges produce about 20% of blacks with bachelor degrees, they produce a disproportionate proportion of black STEM graduates.
There may be something in the atmosphere at a historically black college that encourages students to pursue more challenging majors.
http://www.thinkhbcu.org/hbcu_facts.htm STEM information.
http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07preview.html graduation rates
Gringo-
Your point is what, exactly? The granting of degrees signifies nothing. A recent community organizer known to us all got a law degree from Harvard: The fool vs. knave guy.
The productive schools you name are in the “one or two” (I should’ve written “few”) colleges that are private. They are all self-segregating, nevertheless. That their graduates are admitted to professional schools in the numbers you cite is more a tribute to “diversity” than to achievement. My medical alma (a non-public) revels in its new-found diversity; 55% of this year’s entering class is white, I mean Caucasian.
Outcomes based on diversity instead of merit prove zip.
Iowahawk: Brilliant. Must read.
Why does it never occur to folks like Mr. Blow that it is equally racist to vote for someone based on the color of their skin as it is not to for the same reason? Why must the black man always be the eternal victim. He’s never to blame because of his actions(policy). Clearly he does no wrong. It is his skin color that is the problem. In some ways this has made Obama the perfect Democratic President. He need never address the issues or the substance of criticism. He can always deflect it as an attack on his race.
Meanwhile no one seems to notice that political affiliation is the new racism. Funny how high-minded and tollerant liberals have no problem accepting assumptions, generalizations or any charge lobbed against a Republican. I’m surprised they still serve them in restaurants.
This was always Obama’s subtext to AA’s, but he disguised it enough to make it palatable to educated AA’s so they didn’t have to admit it was their reason, too. “I agree with his policies” is sort of a modern “I only read it for the articles.”
The mild racism of “other things being equal, I’ll give the nod to one of my own” is not the problem in this country. It’s when other things aren’t equal and you still pick your own that is real prejudice. Obama plays a dangerous long-run game in hopes of a short term gain. He has stripped the magazine of most of its articles, making it much harder for supporters to defend him. They will defend him now – they feel they have little choice – but making it more difficult for them in an effort to pump up the turnout gives them more reason to defect.
Think of it this way: if you were an intelligent black person who is generally liberal; supported Obama with pride without major policy objections because you thought he was exactly the sort of serious, intellectual public servant you thought should be encouraged; and were prepared to go to bat for him against unfair criticism, how do you feel when he keeps doing this Huey Long/Adam Clayton Powell/David Duke Us/Them thing? How long before you start to realise “Obama’s making me look bad?”