Reflecting on the racial subtext that played out in yesterday's news, and in recognition that this may be my last day here at Open Left, I wanted to share my own blog post on the subject of reparations:
Is Open Left a think-tank for progressives (in which case dissenting voices like my own are a detraction from the mission)?
Is Open Left an open forum for the left-leaning to the far-left (in which case, we need the ability to talk across very different ideologies needs to be enhanced)
Is Open Left a activism breeding ground (in which case, consensus building needs to be developed)?
The answer to this question will make a difference in the expectations of discourse.
I watched Fox news today. I've said this here at OpenLeft, and I'm going to say it everywhere I can. Liberals are about to lose the narrative if they keep whining about Obama appointing liberals who are not "progressive enough." Every time the liberal faction argues that Obama is appointing centrists and center-right types, they are feeding the meme that Obama will (and needed to) govern from the center-right - a meme that is demonstrably false, as has already been shown by others here at OL.
Let me be clear. I'm an independent, and don't care one fiddle where Obama governs from, so long as he governs well, and keeps some of his major campaign promises. Call it whatever you want. But if the liberals are paying attention - the right is getting ready to coopt Obama. Fox news was THRILLED with Obama, THRILLED, so much that they ignored the opportunity to call him "Clinton II" as the left is fretfully doing, and called him BUSH III. You catch that? BUSH III. They are gleeful, and fully ready to get on board with "their" new president, at least until they can stab him in the back with cultural warfare (that seems to be what's coming).
They even are arguing that Obama going along with the Bush withdrawal plan is Obama being Bush III. How can they get away with this? Because some progressives refuse to acknowledge and embrace that Obama has ALWAYS said he was for a 16 month phased withdrawal, and because the MSM is attempting to claim that Obama promised to "End the war" in an immediate, instead of a phased, careful sense. AND, the right-wing media (at least at FOX) is going to credit Bush with the withdrawal, despite that the timetable was forced upon Bush by the Iraqis.
If the progressives/liberals care about narrative - this ought to be sounding alarms. The more the left wing rejects him, the more the desperate right, eager for a win, coopts him.
Yeah, I know it's corny to say the diary is about hope and change, but actually that's what it is. I'm sharing with those who are interested, a story of unsung heroes who sacrificed to reject the divisiveness and ugliness of these final days of the 2008 campaign.
I'm chronicling this here, because it needs to exist somewhere. I hope that there's nothing here of note, but that said, I have to compile the evidence - such as it is.
First - full disclosure: I signed on with the 2000+ doctors calling for McCain's medical records to be released. I know that other candidates haven't released their records in full detail, but the top of the Republican ticket is 72 years old and a 4 time cancer survivor, as well as a former pow who suffered torture at the hands of enemy captors. I think his medical records are more relevant, and more necessary.
**************
On my blog I offer a (very mild!) conspiracy theory regarding John McCain's health and the possibility of a Palin presidency.
I realize we got a specific pronouncement on the new rules around here, but since you guys note that you read the comments - a number of people, myself included, have asked for some clarity regarding the standards of discourse here. Should we expect a response, or was that post the final word?
Here's where more knowledgeable folks than myself can help, because this is potentially damning.
Obama stands accused by the New York Post of trying to postpone an agreement between Iraq and the US until after the new administration came to office. That's the headline.
My own recollection is that there was some talk during the primaries, of Bush attempting to pressure the Iraq government into a deal that would circumvent Congress's authority to come out of the war - by signing a commitment that tied the hands of the incoming administration. In that context, it seems that Obama, as part of a senate delegation, would try to urge against such a deal.
Are these two ideas related? If so, is Obama authorized to have such a conversation with Iraq as Senator? And if these headlines get out of hand, will Hagel and Reed be helpful and back Obama up on his words, rather than letting the Iraqi government play us and interfere with the election?
Building on the topic of pictures conveying more information than words, and on the believability of lies, here is a youtube video I had the misfortune of watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I just flagged it in YouTube as hateful, because it is promoting racist stereotypes. But interestingly, the person who created this video, apparently didn't even know that it was hateful - and by the name of the video, the person thinks they are slamming both Palin and Obama. (I actually don't think the person thinks that - I think that's a veneer to cover for the obvious racism.)
Anyway - if you watch it, please flag it as well - and if you have other ideas on how to combat this kind of thing - please share them.
Meanwhile, this, and an awful story I read about here:http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/09/the_great_fear.html
I just wanted to say thank you so much for being the only blogger (aside from Al Giordano) who gets it. While the rest of the blogosphere (especially the liberal bloggers) lose their heads you are an island of common sense. Patience and Steel. Yes, yes. yes.
It also occurs to me that in a way McCain and Rove have actually simply taken over the liberal blogosphere in some way. They are being played.
Just a few examples---yesterday Obama gave a fantastic interview at the Service Forum. Did the liberal blogs even cover this? No.
He gave a great speech on the trail. Are his town halls even posted or excerpted? No.
Since Sarah Palin came on the scene - the most noticeable shift in the campaign was a loss (near total) of message. On progressive blogs like HuffPost and this one, and in interviews coming out of the Obama campaign, the sudden loss of focus, the loss of a clear line of attack is obvious, and disturbing. To be quite honest - it feels very much like we are floundering - swatting at flies - the way the McCain campaign was, before they hit upon their celebrity theme. It feels like we are losing.
My early attempts at point this out have been met with scorn and derision, but it occurs to me that swatting at flyswatters is just as counterproductive to making a point as the original flyswatting is, so I'm instead going to post a bit more comprehensively.
I know the unorthodoxy of this choice makes Obama supporters want to celebrate - but in fact this is a very solid choice. Newness doesn't last long - it fades almost instantly - and while people may be hesitant about such a newbie for president - she's not running for president. YES-it makes me uncomfortable to imagine her as next in line - but next is still not NOW. More importantly - Palin shores up McCain's base - and is attractive from a "woman in the white house" point of view. She's pro-life, pro-guns, pro-drilling. That's a conservative trifecta. More importantly - the ONLY real effective argument against Palin is Clinton. Biden will have to be really careful in his debate against her because on the one hand he can wipe the floor with her, but on the other hand, optically - he could wind up looking like a bully. So - this choice ties one hand behind Biden's back. I think he can win anyway - but he's got a LOT of prep to do for tone - he's got to go against Michelle, Hillary, Pelosi, and a couple of other women in private (focus group watched) debates to gauge tone against a variety of female personas. And the pro-life argument has to come from a woman - there will be no woman in any of the debates. WORSE - Obama came across to some women as smug when up against Hillary, s he's got to tread very carefully.
No - this is a very smart choice for McCain, and while it is a beatable ticket - it's not an easily beatable one.
I am not going to be very articulate - I've been browsing all the favorite sites to see what people thought, after having my own celebration of this historic event in my own quiet way. I thought the speech itself was amazing - practical, down to earth, but with a hint of that soaring inspiration that everyone showed up to get.
I posted on my own blog, but offer this as an intro:
___________________
I started this blog feeling a need to speak into some of the issues raised by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, feeling compelled to speak out against false assumptions, and to provide insights where I could. But all the time I felt myself perhaps in the wrong - Baha'is, while obliged to vote, are also obliged to avoid partisan politics like the plague. I find myself kneedeep in partisan politics - if not actively so, certainly emotionally so. And I find myself, and all the country poorer off because of it.
Everyone is talking about how the text message scheme went awry - some cretin in the campaign spilled the beans to CNN's John King - making the media, not the people the first to know that Joe Biden was Obama's VP pick.
OK - but - wasn't it fun? This had almost as much drama as election night. All of us were glued to our computers, our cell phones, our smart phones, etc - waiting for news of the vice presidential pick. Honestly - I don't know if I would have been this excited about the decision if I hadn't signed up to BE excited about it. I was unsure if anyone would care about being the "first to know" - and only circulated the news because I thought it would be worthwhile to get others on the broadcast list. But just the fact of signing up, meant that I was anticipating this news, and increased my interest.
In short - even the news interest was heightened because we were all waiting on the notice - and the official notice was not anti-climactic - it was "official."
One thing the Obama campaign has succeeded in - has been garnering enthusiasm. In this - the texting campaign was a smashing success.
Jesse Jackson was caught on tape offering to castrate Obama for "talking down" to black folks and telling "n*gg*ers" how to behave. On The View, Whoopi Goldberg and Elisabeth Hasselbeck sparred over the racial slur, with Whoopi arguing that blacks can use the word while whites can't. Ta-Nehisi Coates, speaks into the issue with well-appreciated nuance and good sense. And so, I tried really hard to think about where I stand with it all.
***
It is true that there is some nuance in which calling another black person "n*gg*r" is indeed a sign of affection. That is - I can conceptualize it. I can conceptualize it in a humorous content (the way the word "fool" can be used in a teasing, affectionate way), and I have heard and understood brothers talking to one another that way. And because I recognize the inflection, I don't flinch or even blink when someone uses it. I don't have any personal affectionate usages of the word - don't hang hard enough to have acquired the street sense of the word. But I get it.
***
BUT... as a Baha'i, it occurs to me that we are missing the point if we leave it to purely situational ethics. Religion purports to give guidance on right and wrong that transcends situational ethics, and it occurs to me that this is one of those times when consulting the scripture might not be a bad idea. The thing is - it troubled me. It troubles me to see certain white folks, who likely call blacks "n*gg*r" all the time, complaining that they can't do it openly. Those type of folks - you just KNOW that they aren't being affectionate in their usage. And, here was Jesse Jackson - also CLEARLY not being affectionate in his usage. He's calling black folks names - and he wants to be able to do it under his breath, the same way racist white* people do, while complaining that Obama wants to encourage improvement for blacks. And - he gets a bye on the subject... because he's black, and because we all know - we black folk ALL know, just how prevalent it is in the black community for some of us to call others of us the "n" word in a less than affectionate manner. We on't like it when whites do it, because there's an inherent threat of an overwhelming prejudice - but we fail to notice the inherent threat of internalized self-loathing - buying into the frame that says that black people ARE n*gg*rs, or for that matter, that women ARE b*tches.
_______________________
I've been thinking about the hit and miss structure of the McCain campaign, and his also hit and miss structure during the primary, and I am wondering if this seeming incompetence is not deliberate? That is - like a pool hustle - is McCain feeling out the Obama camp's strengths and weaknesses in a drunken careen, only to straighten out late in the game and play serious hardball?
One by one they fall. In watching the VP media chatter, I've been struck by the number of people insisting that they don't want to be vice president.
The conventional wisdom on the subject suggests that this is just standard practice - say you don't want the job to be polite (if so, it's a stupid practice. Sorta like saying no thank you to food when you are in fact, hungry. Your host just might take you at your word...). But some politicians have really gone out of the way to be written off. The entire Virginia delegation seems to be quite content where they are, as is Gore and as is Edwards. In fact, I only remember 3 politicians going against this bit of conventional wisdom - Biden, Clinton, and Hagel.
This diary is really an open question. What the heck is going on? Are there reasons why someone would legitimately NOT want to serve as Vice President? I can think of a few. For instance, I don't think Hillary should want or accept the Vice Presidency. I think it undersells her talents. I can see Gore and Edwards not wanting the post - Edwards because he already ran as VP and might not want to do it again (and then the fact that his wife is fighting cancer - I can see him prioritizing home and family), Gore because - been there, done that, and he's bigger than the Vice Presidency at present. But the Virginia contingent actually worries me, as does the refusal of the role by travelling companion Jack Reed. Why don't they want the job?
Some cynical part of me thinks that Obama's promising choices are being paid (in money or favors) to sit out, so that someone else will have to be the next choice. Another part of me thinks that white men aren't going to do so well with having a black boss (in this, I appreciate Biden's honesty. He didn't frame it in terms of black and white - but he DID express an uncertainty about being able to work for ANYONE, having been his own boss for so many years). But thinking more positively - are there other good explanations for people to avoid being Obama's vp?
Above is video of Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC complaining bitterly about lack of press access in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish I had a longer clip that had Andrea Mitchell responding to the idea of the military being too positive to the Obama campaign. The idea is laughable on its face. General Petraus has no particular reason to be overly friendly to Obama, as he and Obama clash on opinions about what to do in Iraq (in today's news conference, Sen. Obama asserts that this clash is appropriate - that the generals on the ground have a single mission while the president, or any candidates for that office, have to think about the country as a whole, and not just one aspect of the country's strategic objectives). My point is - it seems highly likely that McCain is the favorite of the military, NOT Obama - and if the press was shooed away from the goings on in Iraq and Afghanistan it was either for their protection, or because the candidate wanted an opportunity to do as close to a genuine assessment as he could - which likely necessitated being away from press view.
