I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but the Democratic primary contest features a woman running against an African-American, which doesn’t happen very often. A situation like this raises the possibility, just a little bit, that attitudes born of sexism or racism might come into play. And they have! Although, by any fair accounting, Hillary Clinton has gotten by far the worse of it thus far — it’s a bit easier to be blatantly misogynist in a mainstream kind of way than it is to be racist. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, all by himself, is responsible for enough sexism to warrant several Congressional investigations.
But don’t be disappointed, those of you who were looking forward to an even uglier fight. We still have the general election coming up! In which the right-wing punditocracy, having accommodated themselves to the horror of a McCain candidacy on their own side, will be able to turn their venom on the Democratic candidate full-time. And it’s increasingly likely that the candidate will be Barack Obama. (Notwithstanding the Clinton campaign’s attempts to change the rules mid-stream.) And it will be ugly. Ugly ugly ugly.
As a warm-up salvo, consider Lisa Schiffren of the National Review Online. That would be the web presence of the National Review, leading journal of the conservative movement. Ms. Schiffren has deployed her powers of logic to deduce something that the country surely deserves to know — Barack Obama is a Communist! And here would be the evidence:
Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics.
Arguments don’t get much more air-tight than that. Obama, born in Hawaii of a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, is presumptively Communist because Lisa Schiffren’s mixed-race acquaintances from New York City in the 1960’s were inevitably the spawn of shifty black Communists who seduced nice Jewish girls. Logic! Admittedly, the focus wanders somewhat, as Ms. Schiffren is not quite sure which horror to dwell on, as Belle Waring notes:
The truly beautiful thing about this is that it incoherently wavers between two poles of repulsive slander: is it Communist Negroes having sex with our white women? Or are Communist Jewesses subverting black Americans who, patriotic though modestly ill-treated, would have been able to resist had the party not offered them the tempting fruits of miscegenation?
You might, if you were a generous person who wanted to think the best of the National Review, hope that Ms. Schiffren doesn’t take her chain of deduction too too far. You might be disappointed.
Of course, since the Soviet Union itself no longer exists, it’s an open question what it means practically to have been politically mentored by an official Communist. Ideologically, the implications are clearer. …
It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution. To be sure, there was much to be discontented about, for black Americans, prior to the civil-rights revolution. To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn’t buy the commie line — and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow.
Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family’s background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.
And it’s not just the fever dream of a single maverick columnist. “Accuracy in Media” (sic) has dropped the bombshell that — one of Obama’s father’s friends was a Communist! And from this we are empowered to hint darkly that there must be some nefarious forces behind his popularity.
Obama’s communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.
(One wonders why, if public concern is so obviously mounting, he’s beating McCain so badly?) But we’re not just dealing with some musty old history here. Evidence that Obama’s dark skin tone has a pinkish tinge to it is also to be found in the legislative record, AIM goes on to discover!
AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a “Global Poverty Act” designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.
Can you believe your eyes? The man wants to fight poverty, even in non-American parts of the world! I suspect we’ll be singing L’Internationale at his inauguration, where his left hand will be resting on a copy of Das Kapital. His right hand will, of course, be on the Koran, and in his back pocket he’ll be carrying Mein Kampf, because he’s also a fascist. Mixed races, mixed ideologies.
Barack Obama, leading edge of the Communist/Muslim/Nazi revolution. Time for some investigative journalism!
It’s going to be a long campaign.
McCain is quite atypical for a republican president. He’s fundamentally much more to the left than we are used too seeing.
The idea that a candidate who supports long-term occupation of Iraq, who has joked about bombing Iran, who wants to appoint more judges like Scalia and Alito, and who is pro-torture except when he finds it rhetorically useful to be anti-torture can be called “more to the left” says something really depressing about American politics.
Daisy (13) & Neil B. (18):
The quote attributed to Winston Churchill is usually stated as, “A man who is not a socialist at [20…or so] has no heart, and the man who is not a conservative at 40 has no brain.” I don’t know whether Churchill ever said anything remotely like this, but the attribution to him comes easily because he was quite radical for British politics in his early 20’s, and then switched to the Conservative Party before he was 40. In other words, the quote is a summary justification of Churchill’s personal political journey, whether or not Winston ever spoke the words himself.
The occupation of Iraq has nothing fundamentally to do with if you are right or to the left, other than random party platform. For instance the right was against it in Great Britian, whereas much of the left was for Tony Blair.
McCain was against the incursion (or rather skeptical) of it to begin with if that means anything -shrug- Moreover he was one of the few R’s who is vocally anti torture, so I don’t know, we have some differing information.
Haelifix @ 24 – spot on.
Leaving McCain alone – anybody knows what “change” we can expect from Obama. No, seriously – will it be more like Germany, Sweden or Canada?
Roman – see what I pulled from Obama’s proposals in post #15. BTW Europe is doing well enough, especially considering they have less resources relative to population than we do (which won’t last for long, and then we’ll be even worse off.) Despite put-downs by rightist critics, Europeans often have higher median incomes than Americans (median not average, since our average is distorted by the extremes at the top and is near worthless to make a point about what our standard of living is like.) They have more unemployment but hardly enough to make up for how relatively rotten being unemployed (or even being employed) usually is for most Americans.
hardheaded liberal: That quote is main one of its kind alleged from Churchill, and they have been debunked. Check maybe Snopes for such things. It could indeed express his attitude, and sometimes people put together little pieces of conversation and writing into a succinct “quote.”
Speaking of quoting without attribution in the Obama case: the guy he borrowed from says it was OK, so it perforce becomes OK since taking from a willing provider is not stealing.
If Obama can’t win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and have no chance in New Hampshire, where Mccain is popular and only Hillary has a shot, how can he win in November? Does he think he can make up for this by winning Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Louisiana and Georgia? Sorry but there is no way he going to win those states. Obama is not a obviously communist but what is he?? Nobody knows.
I am really sick of all the Hillary bashing. I could list all of dirty tricks he has pulled that no one has called him on but that would not accomplish anything.
If there is one thing we should all learn from this election is how MESSED up our democracy is. You would think after 225 years we would have it together. All this business with delegates, super delegates duper-duper delegates is nonsense!
All 50 states should vote on a given weekend. Add up all the votes at the end of the weekend (or use the electoral college system). At the end, whoever has the most votes or electoral votes wins! All of this is dragging out for months and months, wasting a lot of valuable resources like time and money.
As Robert Frost put it, “I never dared being a radical when I was young, for fear it would make me conservative when I got old.”
Perhaps Lisa Schiffron can get a job working for the Onion, as that’s where that piece really belongs.
In case you can’t decipher my mistyped html, here it the link (I hope):
blog link
Well, my post before now-#33 was likely too long, and too long since there were so many Obama proposals quoted! So, take the link and find the comment:
Posted by: John E | February 20, 2008 2:56 PM
The number of points mentioned there witness against the empty charge that Obama is “empty.”
If McCain is elected you can be 99% sure there will be a devastating war against Iran. If Clinton is elected the probability is lower, but war will still be likely. Obama is the only candidate who said that he would sit down and discuss the issues with Iran.
Khurram,
If the voting all occurred at once (a single national primary) the candidate with the most money and visibility would have a huge advantage. This is a vetting process and while imperfect, I think it give Americans a chance to learn more about the candidates than a single primary.
Hillary’s campaign is off the tracks. Questioning Obama’s ability to be commander and chief on day one is completely disingenuous. When she and McCain are suggesting that the judgement he might make in a crisis are that of inexperience, we need to remember he is the only one of the three of them that has opposed the war from the beginning. To me that demonstrates superior judgement.
My favorite Clinton line from the last few days “we need sound solutions not sound bites” Now if that isn’t intended to be a sound bite….
Its coming unravelled. I don’t hate Hillary but I think she has simply not made her case as effectively as Obama at this point in history.
Count,
I am not so sure Hillary would be so quick to invade Iran. But I agree that Obama is the best hope for a diplomatic and lasting peace in the region avoiding violence.
e.
If you think the Democratic primary process has been arbitrary, then just look at how the Republican primary process worked out. How McCain, probably the only plausibly electable candidate they fielded this time around, managed to come out the winner of the process is testament to wild swings of fortune and lucky breaks. If any number of factors had been slightly different (e.g. if Giuliani hadn’t decided to skip the early primaries and focus on Florida, or if Huckabee hadn’t performed so well in the early debates) then he would have been toast long before he could have staged his comeback.
Neil B@30
I was not trying to be sarcastic – I’m from Europe, been in those countries and have to agree that (at least on the surface) life seams good there.
The question was real and if there was a bit of sarcasm in it, it was from my skepticism that any drastic changes will happen. I’m not even sure if we want any drastic changes. The things like CC reform would certainly help, but is this the “change” we are all hearing about?
Elliot,
Although I don’t dislike him, Obama has not really made a case. His speeches are like a broken record with a skip, saying “change, change, change, change …”. He’s kind of like a cult figure here with the students. They can’t really tell you WHY he would make a good president, but say that he sure makes great inspiring speeches and they feel good about him anyway. The thing is, most of these students are barely even old enough to remember the Clintons when the Republicans cranked up their very effective and well oiled hate machine against them, and don’t realize that the same will be aimed at Obama. If they think that Obama is going to lift us to a peaceful political unification, they greatly underestimate their enemy and are sadly naive. We need someone who can play hard ball right now. First and foremost, the next president must have to have the guts to root out all of the political operatives that Bush has stuffed into the Federal Government.
I think Barack can play hardball. Having lived in D. C. I think the issue of government appointees will take care of itself. After all we are looking at regime change here.
If McCain is the best they can throw at the democrats, I say let the games begin. Barack will eat his lunch.
e.
Pingback: Friday 22 February 2008 « blueollie
Tacitus, much of the wild swings of Republican primary positioning come from their having “winner-take-all” primaries. This of course does not reflect the preferences of the voters, and simulates the creaky idea that “the states” are like persons with their own will etc. This is ironic since the conservatives that support such primaries, the Electoral College, etc., so often prattle about individualism.