Barack Obama: Troll

Politics & Current Events

Troll: "A joke disguised as an outrageously stupid statement or question, intended to trap people into believing it is serious." I'll add, a person who makes such jokes, and a person who, using the strawman technique, attributes opinions to others that they have not expressed and do not possess. Taken in part from the Urban Dictionary.

Barack Obama, on Friday:

The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. 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? (Emphasis added.)

Scott Simon, host of right-wing shill National Public Radio's Weekend Edition program, took Obama to task for this remark on yesterday's program. I'll not transcribe Mr. Simon's remarks but they can be heard here.

Simon's point is that Obama's candidacy is not against the handful of losers who spread scurrilous rumors on the internet. It's against John McCain, and the Republican Party which McCain now functionally controls as Obama controls the Democratic Party. But the remark above can be taken, indeed is meant to be taken while maintaining plausible deniability, as an attribution to McCain and his party of race-based attacks. About attacks we'll never hear coming from McCain, who has already proven that he'd rather lose an election than cross certain lines.

Obama, by casting this particular "and did I mention he's black?" question among the very legitimate questions that can be raised about his lack of experience, questions already raised by every single Democrat against whom he ran, seemingly intends to portray those who ask those questions as racists. They aren't. It's a very legitimate question.

But Obama, by making this remark, is playing the race card first, and he's playing it in a country that has to a great extent moved past the 1960s. We have a long way to go, but he's playing it in a country where being accused of bigotry is more damaging among the general population than being the victim of bigoted comments. Ask Michael Richards or Isaiah Washington, or for that matter Bill and Hillary Clinton, if you don't believe me.

One of the things that attracted me to Obama in the first place is that while the man is black, he has, to this point in his campaign, and while not deemphasizing his race, at least appeared to have the intent of governing as a post-racial politician. A man who, while black, is as concerned with the awful circumstances of coal miners in West Virginia as he is with the awful circumstances of housing project residents in Chicago as he is with the awful circumstances of sub-minimum wage chicken processing plant workers in Texas. A man who would benefit this country by helping us to become truly color-blind or at least to act as if we are (and behavior influences thought, make no mistake about it), by abandoning at least the racial grievance politics that seemed to be sole issue for past black Democratic Party presidential candidates if not the class grievance politics that are the modern party's foundation. A president for everyone.

But he's playing the card. And he's playing it preemptively. And he's playing it against a man who, while deeply scarred and flawed and with whom I disagree about a great many things, has had a long career of rare honor and integrity in a Washington where long careers typically mean dishonor and dishonesty. Here's hoping Obama doesn't do it again.

As Simon points out, in this election we're going to have to watch both sides carefully.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

27 Comments

26 Comments

  1. Ken  •  Jun 22, 2008 @11:30 am

    That's certainly one way to interpret it.

    I'm not sure if it's the only way. In one sense, Obama is up against McCain alone. They're the two main candidates. But on the other hand, in the realm of controlling the dialogue and defining themselves, both are up against the media and pundits and columnists and mass emailers and bloggers and etc. And as to that class of people, Obama's comment is a reaction, not preemptive. Plenty of people writing and talking about Obama have, in fact, pushed the HUSSEIN button as often and as hard as possible (in a manner reminiscent of Dan Qualye saying "His name IS Mario. Mario Mario Mario" when reporters asked whether he was trying to emphasize Cuomo's ethnicity).

    So I doubt that McCain will personally play the race card much. I doubt that he actually thinks that dark-skinned people, or people with a foreign-sounding middle name, should not be President. On the other hand, I think he knows full well that people are going to push those ideas on his behalf to get him elected — and he's not going to talk about it or do much to stop it. Similarly, Obama's not going to come out and call McCain an angry old man, but he's not going to do much to stop anyone else from doing it.

    A think a fair reading of Obama's "they" includes not just McCain and his top staff, but the distributors of Republican talking points in general. And I think it would be hard to argue that Republican talking points this cycle won't include dog whistles about blackness and Muslimness.

  2. Patrick  •  Jun 22, 2008 @11:36 am

    You give the benefit of the doubt. I don't. You're such a sweetheart. I think Obama means both interpretations of course, but I don't see his usual "John McCain is an honorable man" line there, nor will we.

  3. Clay  •  Jun 22, 2008 @5:03 pm

    There is a rhythm and a crescendo to his speechmaking, and he hit a certain note at a certain time which provided both a dig and a chuckle at just the right moment. We know he's a man who knows how to work an audience, and here he's doing it again. We need not strain for deeper motives or darker purposes.

    You're right that he's been slow to underscore this point, and that it means something that he has been, but please, let's not go all Peggy Noonan when the words do leak out in an offhanded attempt to get a laugh.

  4. Ansley  •  Jun 22, 2008 @5:21 pm

    Patrick, we will never become truly color blind society and we shouldn't want to be. Obama really is a president for every man.

    McCain could have been the man you describe (with the honorable, long-standing Washington career) if it weren't for his unapologetic use of the term 'gook'- pointed out earlier this week right here at PH.

  5. Patrick  •  Jun 22, 2008 @5:46 pm

    Ansley, forgive me if I'm not yet convinced that Obama is a president for every man, or woman for that matter.

    I'm not convinced that he's a senator for every Illinoisian yet.

  6. Brian  •  Jun 22, 2008 @5:49 pm

    Patrick, you know the extent and depth of my man crush on Sen. Obama. That said, I'm more on your side of the fence on this than not. I was a reasonably big fan of Primary Obama. I am not at all a fan of General Election Obama thus far.

  7. Ken  •  Jun 22, 2008 @7:07 pm

    You give the benefit of the doubt. I don’t. You’re such a sweetheart. I think Obama means both interpretations of course, but I don’t see his usual “John McCain is an honorable man” line there, nor will we.

    But telling the electorate to expect McCain himself to say racist things is a losing strategy, and a dumb one. And Obama is inexperienced and prone to some campaign missteps, but not quite that dumb, I suspect.

    I'm not suggesting he's above bare-knuckle politics.

  8. Remus West  •  Jun 22, 2008 @7:32 pm

    If you truly believe John McCain to have had a long and honorable career then you never read anything about or looked into the Lincoln Savings and Loan mess.

  9. Ansley  •  Jun 22, 2008 @8:16 pm

    Patrick, let me amend and say, "Obama really could be a president for everyone". You wrote it yourself in your seventh paragraph.

  10. David  •  Jun 23, 2008 @9:30 am

    Remus West Says: "If you truly believe John McCain to have had a long and honorable career then you never read anything about or looked into the Lincoln Savings and Loan mess. "

    Hmmm. You seem to be under the impression that McCain was particularly tainted by his inclusion among the Keating Five. In fact, he was a token Republican included to provide "bipartisan" cover for the ethics charges against Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), and (to a lesser extent) John Glenn (D-OH). (One might say Glenn was included to give cover to the inclusion of McCain).

    Slate has a handy summary, Remus. Educate yourself:

    The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.

    In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence."

    The Keating Five scandal was a media circus, and McCain was drawn into it on the strength of his personal acquaintance with Charles Keating, a prominent donor. Wiki also makes the point:

    Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him."

    Revile McCain if you will, but don't fall on this canard; its back is quite oily.

  11. Ezra  •  Jun 23, 2008 @10:06 am

    Unlike Brian, I have not been a huge fan of Obama. His rhetoric often rings hollow with me. However, here, I'm giving him a pass. It would be one thing if (as you wrongly suggest in your post) the people hurling these accusations were "a handful of losers" instead of Fox News & the Swift Boat crowd (although, you were right about the losers..)

    While McCain might be an honorable man, he is also being advised by Karl Rove. That is the epitome of win at all costs, given their history. The McCain campaign may be safely insulated from third parties talking about terrorist fist jabs, but it would take a very trusting person to think they weren't at least tacitly involved.

    Obama is right to meet this head on, and address it. His actions here force McCain to react strongly when any of those sorts of attacks occur, instead of the usual wink & nod response.

  12. Patrick  •  Jun 23, 2008 @10:16 am

    What is the Republican Party, doing to make an issue of Obama's race Ezra?

    If you mean that it's wrong to raise any of the issues Obama named against him, well, we'll have to disagree. The issue of his lack of experience is a very legitimate one, one that would be raised by Democrats (the only people I've seen use his race in a negative fashion) if, say, Bobby Jindal were running.

    The point of the line was to paint those who raise the legitimate issue with the illegitimate brush. Though in a few cases these are the same people, by and large they are not, and certainly not in McCain's case.

  13. Ezra  •  Jun 23, 2008 @10:23 am

    I have absolutely no problem referring to Fox News as the Republicans (Alan Colmes notwithstanding…) My issue is not with the experience comments at all, those are definitely valid. It's the Hussein slips, or "terrorist fist jabs" or other Fox witticisms that need to be addressed head on.

    Again, I take issue with your marginalizing of the source for the comments. These aren't bloggers in their mothers basement (Alan Colmes notwithstanding) but the most watched cable network in the US.

  14. Patrick  •  Jun 23, 2008 @2:56 pm

    And had Obama spoken of Fox News I wouldn't have posted this Ezra. The problem with discussing this with "you people" is that from Ken and Clay and their ilk I read this is no big deal and that I'm reading too much into it. From you I read that what I think Obama meant to say is exactly what he meant to say, and that he should do more of it, more directly.

    You people are confusing.

    As for Rove, when last I checked he was an unpaid, non-staff person who has given advice to the McCain campaign. Rove denies that by the way, but since he's a liar we'll take it as read. Yet I've given advice to the Obama campaign, right here, on more than once occasion, so will you cite me as a source on Obama's campaign tactics when you endorse Nader or Gravel?

    I rather doubt that John McCain, of all people, has an inordinate amount of affection for Karl Rove.

  15. PLW  •  Jun 23, 2008 @3:44 pm

    "I rather doubt that John McCain, of all people, has an inordinate amount of affection for Karl Rove."

    But how does his illegitimate black daughter feel?

  16. J.W. Hamner  •  Jun 24, 2008 @6:50 pm

    I've aleadey registered my disgust in your forums at this collection of words that some people would call a post. I will have none of it. Garbage Absolute trash.

    You know what they're doing Patrick, and you've seen it. For Obama not to acknowledge it is madness. To ding him for doing so is pool of the dirtiest variety.

  17. Patrick  •  Jun 24, 2008 @7:05 pm

    Hardly the first time I've disgusted you Jason, and I hope it won't be the last. As I've pointed out to you previously, you and I, like the British and the Americans, are separated only by our common language.

  18. J.W. Hamner  •  Jun 24, 2008 @7:19 pm

    We can cross our fingers.

    I am disappointed, but I will live. I expect that Patrick is ready to drop the hammer on my less-educated ass.

    Or maybe there is no defense that a lawyer can concoct that avoids reality.

  19. David  •  Jun 24, 2008 @7:24 pm

    In political allegiance the blinkered weak, finding their faith, hold fast and fiercely to what they're sure they're seeing.

  20. J.W. Hamner  •  Jun 24, 2008 @7:39 pm

    David, spin whatever words you want…

    I think of times when my parents use to say
    They have to pick cotton in the field each and every day
    They would tell me how it made them feel
    To know how race in the south back some 65 years…

    We are not fucking around here. This isn't a joke, as I'm pretty sure Patrick knows.

  21. David  •  Jun 24, 2008 @8:09 pm

    So you're saying Obama has liberty to play the "Racism!" card preemptively?

  22. J.W. Hamner  •  Jun 24, 2008 @8:21 pm

    I'm saying there is no "preemptively". Pretending that racism doesn't exist is all Patrick, not me.

  23. David  •  Jun 24, 2008 @8:46 pm

    There's a difference between (a) whether racism exists, and (b) whether particular Republicans in the service of McCain should rightly be accused of such racism.

    Obama wasn't talking about (a), as you pretend; he was asserting something that entails (b):

    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 knows this? I believe Patrick's point is that nothing in McCain's actual campaigning thus far warrants such an allegation. This is Obamagoguery at its worst.

    My question to you: Why not pay attention to what's actual? Why not engage in reality-based analysis of the political situation? There's only one reason for Obama to play a preemptive race card, and it's an ugly reason.

  24. Ken  •  Jun 24, 2008 @9:13 pm

    I’ve aleadey registered my disgust in your forums at this collection of words that some people would call a post. I will have none of it. Garbage Absolute trash.

    Cut it out.

  25. Grandy  •  Jun 25, 2008 @3:17 am

    [quote]Pretending that racism doesn’t exist is all Patrick, not me.[/quote]

    This is definately all you.

  26. David  •  Jul 31, 2008 @11:18 am

1 Trackback