Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What Hitchens overlooks is that Obama does not make a big deal about his race.

A classic Obama moment came years ago during a discussion of Selma Alabama and the civil rights movement.

Someone said "Yes, Selma was a pivotal moment in African-American history"

Obama corrected him. "Selma was a pivotal moment in American history."

= = =

Just about every Republican who has worked closely with Obama has expressed respect for him even when they disagree. In part because Obama shows respect for Republican ideas even when he disagrees with those ideas.

Even conservative students at the U of C law school say that Professor Obama gave their viewpoints a fair hearing in the classroom, which is noteworthy given the ongoing claims of fascism of the liberal academia.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 09:31 AM

What Hitchens overlooks is that Obama does not make a big deal about his race.

Bill, aren't you ever embarrassed when you comment about links that you either didn't read, or didn't read for comprehension?

One can't exactly say that Sen. Obama himself panders to questions of skin color. One of the best chapters of his charming autobiography describes the moment when his black Republican opponent in the Illinois Senate race—Alan Keyes—accused him of possessing insufficient negritude because he wasn't the descendant of slaves! Obama's decision to be light-hearted—and perhaps light-skinned—about this was a milestone in itself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 8, 2008 09:35 AM

Also, if Obama wasn't black, Hillary's "Vote for me because I'm a girl" would have been irresistible, if unfortunate.

But yes, Jeri Ryan was key here. I know people who know both Jack Ryan and Barack Obama and Alan Keyes was very much the easier opponent.

= = =

Best moment of the Keyes - Obama debate was the question:

"What would you say if your child told you they were gay"

Alan Keyes gave a very long and contrived answer. Obama said:

"The first thing I'd say is 'I love you'"

There is a human-ness there that transcends race.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 09:36 AM

If Obama gets into the White House, will it be due to Jeri Ryan? Just an interesting example of how contingent life can be.

On the contrary, the process of Republican prudes sinking one of their own is about as novel as wind in Great Plains.

Besides, they could have put up a good candidate after disposing of Jack Ryan. Instead of even trying to win the race, they punted with avante garde racial tokenism. After all, Alan Keyes is running for president this year, just like Obama. But this time, most of the debate organizers have treated him like an usher.

Posted by Jim Harris at January 8, 2008 09:38 AM

Hitchens is being disingenuous with that passage.

It is an example of "faint praise" -- not only does Obama not run on the race card but his campaign doesn't either. Are some Democrats supporting Obama because he is black? Sure. But that has very little to do with the core of his support

This is also an example of how hard it will be for the right wing media to attack Obama.

Madrassa? That dog won't hunt.

Angry black? He isn't one.

Hillary is facing that same problem right now.

There is no good way to attack Obama with traditional mudslinging, and it has her reduced to tears.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 09:41 AM

Jack Ryan was one heck of a candidate.

U of C law school graduate who walked away from big bucks to teach at a Catholic high school in Chicago. A mostly black high school, as I recall.

He would have been tough to beat.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 09:44 AM

Bill, we're still waiting for you to write something to indicate that you actually read Hitchens piece, and aren't just whining and blathering about Obama. I'll do myself the favor of not holding my breath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 8, 2008 09:48 AM

I read the entire piece and found nothing but a desire to shove Obama into a pre-existing stereotype found both in Hitchen's imagination and in the desperate scramblings of Republican political operatives seeking to locate a line of attack against Obama.

In short, nothing of substance to comment on.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 10:03 AM

Actually, I think that you based all your comments on a stereotype of what you thought the piece would be so you wouldn't have to actually take the time to read it. Certainly anyone who actually did read it would have trouble recognizing it from your description.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 8, 2008 10:21 AM

Hugh Hewitt on Obama, from Townhall:

2. The rise of Obama: Really, do you think 71-year old John McCain can come close to the phenom from Chicago? Even as concern over the war fades because of the success of the surge? The fall debates will see a respectful Obama listen intently to the elder statesman and promise to consult closely with him, and then he'll turn to the audience and talk about a new era of change that will include the best of the generation that has served us so well and so bravely. If McCain tries to get tough with Obama, the Saturday night McCain emerges, and the GOP is toast. If he smiles at Obama and comments on his youth and inexperience, everyone will hear their grandpa saying "When I was a kid...." and tune out. Turn out the lights on the GOP at that moment. The only way to beat Obama is with a overwhelming command of the issues of the economy and the future, the war against the jihadists far beyond Iraq, and the intricacies of entitlement overload and immigration control collapse. And to do so with energy and good humor.

The Hitchens approach won't work, and Hewitt believes Romney is the only guy who can accomplish this.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 11:28 AM

We're still waiting for you to explain what "the Hitchens approach" is, that's actually based on something that he actually wrote.

Again, we won't hold our breath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 8, 2008 11:45 AM

The "Hitchens approach" shall be to campaign against Trinity United rather than Barack Obama.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 11:55 AM

The Color of an Advantage
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, January 8, 2008; A19

WARSAW -- "Will Americans vote for a black man for president?"

If I had a 10-euro bill for every time some incredulous foreigner asked me that question in the past week, I'd be a very rich person, particularly given the current exchange rate.

I never had a proper answer prepared -- I don't have a crystal ball, after all, and the polls change every day. But it hardly mattered, since any mildly positive reply wasn't believed. Surely, I told one British acquaintance, the Iowa caucus vote is evidence that at least some Americans will vote for a black man for president. He disagreed, citing the atypicality of Iowa. After all, "there are plenty of states where you hardly see any black faces at all." Alas, he seemed to have forgotten -- or perhaps never knew -- that Iowa is one of them.

One can laugh off these British prejudices, of course -- but they got me wondering how many of them we Americans share. All of us have grown accustomed to the idea that darker skin is a crippling liability in a national election. But right now, at this admittedly odd historical moment, isn't it actually an enormous advantage?

To see what I mean, back up and focus (again) on who is in the White House, how he got there and who wants to replace him. In case you'd forgotten that George W. Bush is the scion of an American political dynasty, or that Hillary Clinton is married to a former U.S. president, let me remind you. And let me remind you also that at many points in the past, these sorts of connections would have been advantages.

Though we like to remember our first president gallantly turning down the chance to be crowned king, Americans love dynasties. Think of the multiple Gores, Landrieus, Browns, Longs, Dingells, Rockefellers and Udalls in politics, not to mention the Adamses, Kennedys and Roosevelts.

And no wonder: Even aside from the money and connections, growing up surrounded by politics is probably a good way to develop political opinions. Marriage to a politician is probably even better. Besides, from the voters' point of view, surnames function as a form of branding, particularly in very large, inattentive electorates such as those of India, Argentina and the United States. In theory, you know what you'll get, more or less, if you elect a Gandhi in India or a Clinton in America: You can save yourself the time it would take to read about them.

Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she is running for election at a moment when the flaws of oligarchy and dynasty are on display as never before. One of the least talented members of one of our most prominent families -- the wrong brother, as some would have it -- is in the White House. And at least in this narrow sense, she has more in common with him than she does with her husband. Bill Clinton was "the man from Hope." She is the "woman from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

No wonder the clichéd word "change" works like magic for Obama. And no wonder it is beginning to seem, possibly for the first time in history, that it is better to be black. To put it bluntly, for a large, frequently inattentive electorate, there could be no more potent symbol of his differentness, his non-Clinton-non-Bushness, than Obama's dark skin. His race also functions as a form of branding, telling you that he is the anti-oligarch in this contest, "the man from Hawaii by way of Jakarta, Chicago and Harvard." It's even more effective than a famous surname. You don't have to hear him speak to know he isn't related to this president or any other: Just look at his photograph.

Naturally, I can't speak for all Americans, and I have no idea if primary voters, let alone the national electorate, will line up behind him. But I'll bet that if they don't, it won't be because of his skin color. And many of those who do vote for Obama will be motivated by his skin color, just to spite the oligarchs. As for the expats whom I know: I can promise that most of them, even the Republicans, would vote for Obama in New Hampshire or South Carolina if they could, precisely because he is black. At least that would show all of our snotty foreign friends that we really aren't governed by dynasties. At least that would make us feel once again that we come from a country where any child really can grow up to be president.

Posted by at January 8, 2008 12:00 PM

The "Hitchens approach" shall be to campaign against Trinity United rather than Barack Obama.

Well, to the degree that that really is the "Hitchens approach" it sounds like a good strategy to me. Not by itself, of course.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 8, 2008 12:03 PM

Well, to the degree that that really is the "Hitchens approach" it sounds like a good strategy to me. Not by itself, of course.

I agree that this may be a necessary part of a viable strategy to run against Obama.

But if it is bungled, look for a Democratic blow out. Thus, a high risk strategy.

A large blow out, if Huckabee's supporters are poorly treated by the eventual GOP nominee.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 12:13 PM

PS -- Jim Webb (a true Scots-Irish patriot) and a man with a splendid approval rating from the NRA would be an excellent VP choice for Obama.

Webb could do a masterful job of shutting down race baiting attacks on Obama. And he could neutralize any gun-grabber arguments against Obama via a simple ad:

Jim Webb says "The next President will take away your guns over my dead body"

Cut to Obama, "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message."

Hey, if I were running Obama's campaign that is exactly what I would do in the general election.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2008 12:49 PM

I thought that at least all geeks knew the story that Obama got political help from the Borg.

Less known is that Senator Obama is the first Serb presidential candidate. He and Governer Blago get financial support from the same place. Senator Clinton is vested with the Anti-Serb Brigade (Albright, Berger, Holbrooke). If Senator Clinton gets desparate and if the Serbs are still demonizable, you heard it here first and you will hear much more of it from Senator Clinton.

Posted by Paul Milenkovic at January 8, 2008 01:13 PM

mmmm...Jeri Ryan....

Posted by Jason Bontrager at January 8, 2008 02:04 PM

mmmm....Jeri Ryan....mmmm
I agree. Nicely said Jason. More links like that Rand, please.

Hey, let's wait till NH closes. this is too much discussion of Obama much too early. Who knows, HE might come in third place today. Who really knows.

Posted by at January 8, 2008 03:27 PM

This is also an example of how hard it will be for the right wing media to attack Obama.

Bill, perhaps this hasn't occured to you, but maybe they could attack his position on the issues?

Picking a President purely on the basis of namecalling and personality is like picking a lunar exploration architecture purely on the basis of namecalling and personality.

While you say Obama "shows respect for Republican ideas," you continue to throw mud and names at "right wingers" who are no more conservative than Obama and actually support 98% of your left-wing agenda, merely because they registered in the wrong party.

On the other hand, it appears you're now an Obama bomber even though Obama would cancel ESAS which you repeatedly told us was the only space policy that's "politically viable."

Does that mean you've rethought the sanctity of ESAS or have you decided that space policy is not really important after all?

How about showing your "respect for ideas" by discussing ideas instead of merely slinging mud at everyone who isn't Obama?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 8, 2008 06:31 PM

It's because of Oprah. 20 comments, no Oprah. My my.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at January 8, 2008 07:44 PM

Bill, perhaps this hasn't occured to you, but maybe they could attack his position on the issues?

Well, now you've gone and done it. You've been told not to blab these arcane secrets, but you just couldn't keep your mouth shut.

Fortunately for you, it'll just sound like so much jibber-jabber to Bill, so it's unlikely you'll have to be killed.

This time.

Posted by McGehee at January 9, 2008 09:22 AM

Post a comment