Was that the Race Card?
I cringed while listening to Obama's speech the other day when he said he did not look like the presidents on the $1 and $5 bill. I took it to be a reference to his race; and my cringe was for what I initially perceived as a mistep (a rare thing in the Obama campaign).
I've been following this campaign pretty closely and I do not recall McCain or his surrogates bringing up Obama's physical appearance, let alone race. I've heard plenty about his first, second and surname; and I interpretted them as vaguely racist, or xenophobic at best. But nothing overt, and not from McCain's own lips.
So then why the comment about not looking like currency presidents? It's bothering me, and I would be curious if others had the same reaction or interpretation when they heard it.
If I am making too much of it and it was just a reference to age (fifty-cent piece excepting), let me know. There have been accusations before during the primary that the race card was carefully played against Clinton. But, if they existed, they were hard to see, and were eclipsed by Bill's dismissive Georgia comments.
Advertisement
Well, he's not wearing a powdered wig, is he? Or an ascot, or wooden teeth.
July 31, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Lincoln doesn't wear a wig or ascot either.
July 31, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear about Lincoln I checked the transcripts reported by the media and they used the quote "You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know." However, I heard something different when I heard it on the radio, which I found on the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBonEy32nV4
Just don't want to be accused of misquoting.
July 31, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No beard.
July 31, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, he's beardless. You got me.
July 31, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The race card is aptly a conversation ender.
"Your racist!"
How might one reply? Whoa! No! What?
What evidence must one have to combat such a charge? I have black friend?
There is really no room for error when making such charges. It may be equally unfair to be falsely accused of racism as it is to be the victim.
I don't think you could find a single quote from the candidate that would suggest race-baiting, but that is not how it is done.
During the primaries Obama supporters and other decent people were outraged by the candidate herself trumpeting her favor among WHITE PEOPLE - denying desirable characteristics from those not WHITE - clearly racist because it has nothing to do with the issues (though she did have support).
What was missed or under-emphasized was the overall approach the Clinton's took with voters. Bill's framing of the "fairytale - the whole thing, his calls for "good" people just like those in his audience, from "good" places like those small, predominantly white towns his audience reside to get to the polls "TO SHOW THEM."
In politics, whether believable or not, you can always say you didn't say what you said, or mean it the way you said it (the campaign had no parallel to the summer of 68, other than a inspirational candidate, and she did say - he was assassinated!).
Sometimes a denial and a change of subject will let one off the hook.
It is important, if we deny history, to account for actions made today. If you don't think race is a viable avenue in republican minds, you are kidding yourself.
Time will show. Will we debate the intent of each offense, and ignore a theme? Likely, because, you know, in American were all equal. Ha!
July 31, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Additionally, a pre-emptive blame the other guy might prove effective when battling future cries.
'Oh, he always plays the race card!'
Which will no doubt rally support for anyone who knows a black with a job (that should be theres!)
That is a joke!
July 31, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, but HRC primary campaign redux aside, what did you think he meant when you heard or read that he said, "You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know."
I am just curious how others take that. I've now seen two video clips in two locations where he says it, so it is now part of his current stump speech. What is he saying other than Donal's cheeky observation that he does not wear a powdered wig, ascot or wooden dentures?
July 31, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is pointing out, as gingerly as he can, that he's being attacked because he looks different, and part of that is having a foreign name, and part is not being white.
Is that playing the race card? If I had never heard Rush playing Barack the Magic Negro on his show, I might have thought so. Given that he is being crudely attacked because of his race, I see it as a very realistic observation.
July 31, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not a bad answer. I never listen to or even read about Mr. Limbaugh, so I've was unaware of the Barack the Magic Negro tune. That's pretty overt. Offensive too.
I guess it would be counterproductive for AirAmerica to respond symmetrically--if there even is such a response.
Okay, then. It's a call out, not a race card.
July 31, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard it while back, to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/04/barack-magic-negro-new-song-played-on_30.html
July 31, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post on another thread on these same lame "attack Obama for 'playing the race card'" when he said nothing about race -- but those who accuse him of "playing the race card" EXPRESSLY used the term RACE --
-----
"Why is it considered a ‘racist’ comment if he discusses his upbringing or 'difference' and how some might use that difference against him by scaring folks that are afraid of such ‘change’?"
You simply don't get it.
McHateful was playing the "race card" by reminding people that Obama is not white. And he did that by exploiting and misrepresenting a statement made by Obama in which Obama made NO reference to "race".
There are many ways in which Obama doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills. For one, his ears stick out. For another, he has a different name than all of them. For another, he doesn't have long hair, or wear a powdered wig.
He doesn't have an English accent. He doesn't wear glasses. He isn't Republican.
So why did McHateful INTERPRET Obama's comment as being about "race"? Because that's what is in the INTERPRETER'S -- McHateful's -- head:
RACISM.
One doesn't defend against racism -- instead, one names it for what it is, and points to the source of it.
-----
Did Obama expressly say $1.00 and $5.00 bills? Then look at them, and him. He doesn't wear a powdered wig. He doesn't have a beard.
His ears stick out.
There are numrous ways in which Obama is not like the presidents on the $1 and $5 bills. Why would the McSlime campaign focus exclusively on R-A-C-E? In order BOTH to pander to racists (which includes themselves), and to accuse Obama of what THEY THEMSELVES were doing.
Why would the McSlime campaign focus exclusively on R-A-C-E? Because that is in THEIR heads. Because THEY are the racists.
July 31, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I cringed while listening to Obama's speech the other day when he said he did not look like the presidents on the $1 and $5 bill. I took it to be a reference to his race; and my cringe was for what I initially perceived as a mistep (a rare thing in the Obama campaign)."
In view of the fact that Obama didn't use the word "race," but YOU "heard" that, obviously means the racism is in YOUR head --
It's okay to SPEAK with an accent. It is NOT okay to HEAR with one.
July 31, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There have been accusations before during the primary that the race card was carefully played against Clinton. But, if they existed, they were hard to see, . . . ."
I don't know whether to take you seriously.
There is a thing called "code-speak" as concerns racism. The term "states' rights," as example, has a different connotation for whites than it does for blacks because blacks know it is the phrase used both as basis for and defense of Jim Crow. It is "code-speak". So when a Republican makes a speech in the South and says he's "for states rights," he knows what he is doing: he is "playing the race card".
Ask yourself: who used the phrase "race card"? McSlime, or Obama? If you are accused of something which you aren't even thinking, then who is thinking it -- and making issue of it?
Obama isn't going to play that game, because he isn't a fool: he knows it would be to his own detriment.
Again: it is okay to SPEAK with an accenot, but NOT okay to HEAR with one.
July 31, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone contending that many, many voters are deciding on Obama SOLELY on his race? What does it mean to read that voters "don't know" who he is, wonder if he can conduct a foreign trip without stumbling, is sufficiently "American"? Does anyone care to contend that if Obama were white, this election would now be as good as over, given that McCain is such a joke? Admittedly, most white Americans believe racism is a figment of the black imagination -- maybe that is why that longed-for "national dialogue" never gets off the ground? -- but the reason this election is a referendum on Obama is because this country is going to have to decide is skin color will continue to control status. The country has taken some big steps; can we take the final one?
July 31, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a contention that "some" voters will make a decision based on race. With seven states currently assessed as toss ups (i.e. polling margins are 3% and below) and representing 91 electoral votes, "some" may be all that it takes to win the election (source: Pollster.com).
Race was widely discussed in the media during the primaries and will continue to be a topic through the general. If someone believes African Americans are substandard that pretty much settles who he/she will vote for this election.
But that's not the real audience for the debate. The real audiences are those with peripheral hangups about race, and struggle with those hangups. For example, Susie and John White in Florida, both of whom believe racism is wrong, but are uncomfortable around black people. McCain wishes to appeal to their discomfort; Obama to their belief that racism is wrong. According to Pollster.com, Florida is leaning Democrat by eight tenths of a percent at this time. If we use the same data from Pollster.com and assume that "leaning" states will vote as assigned, then any of the toss-up states win the election for Obama. Of the ten toss-ups, four voted Democratic in 1996, five in 1992 and four in 1976.
I think race will play a pretty big factor, and based on this thread I am beginning to re-evaluate how I think the Obama campaign should handle it; which is to say I think they should handle it.
August 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please, spare me. Obama meant he looks different because he's black, of course. He played the race card by holding it up and showing it to the audience instead of articulating, "Hey, look, I'm black!" He wasn't talking about his ears or hair or teeth, for crap's sake.
It's the exact same set-up he gave to the fundraisers in San Francisco in his bitter comments, only back then, he mentioned his skin color (or Pennsylvania voters' skin color) directly about 4 or 5 times.
July 31, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
JNag:
I'm not buying the argument that it's his lack of powdered wigs or stovepipe hats. Your posts contradict. In the first you suggested that I should take Obama's currency statement literally (ironically Dolan had kidded me about that earlier in the thread). Then you later enlighten me about "code speak." So should I reserve code speak for Republicans, but take Democrats literally?
I have no idea what an ACCENT has to do with it. Are you referring to William F. Buckley? He's the only conservative I can think of that affected a quasi-english accent. Certainly you cannot possibly think that either Washington or Lincoln had an English accent (it must be in context to the other thread somehow). What's with the glasses? I believe Washington, Lincoln and William F Buckley each wore reading glasses, but they usually shed them for portraits. And what exactly is HEARING with an ACCENT? I've read and written with an accent; e.g. dialect in dialogue. But HEARING an accent outside of being on the receiving end of a conversation with someone with a dialect, that one confounds me. Perhaps you are making a more profound statement that I am incapable of understanding.
What I do get is that stump speeches are poured over by campaign advisers to hone the message. The candidate has ten minutes to make the pitch and then move on to the next audience and pitch again, so the stump speech has to be pithy. Literalism is not a good vehicle for this type of communication. If he says he's pro-labor there is a whole set of pre-existing and nuanced understanding to the statement; he's certainly not being literal, as in he supports work. Since I have now seen four versions of the statement from four separate events, I am asserting that it is part of his current stump speech. This begs the question of what it means with the understanding that it may mean different things to different audiences(your "states' rights" example).
My post wished only to explore the meaning and significance of the statement. To be clear I cringed when I heard it the day he said it (I was listening to NPR which was covering the Senators return to the campaign trail). I thought McCain would pick it up, and when he did, I thought it worth exploring since it is now all over the internet.
Finally, I am certain racism is not exclusively in my head since I see it all around me on a daily basis. It is in immediate evidence in our political theater. For example, I am reminded of two seminal speeches both made in places called Philadelphia. The most recent in my home state of Pennsylvania. The other some 28 years ago in Mississippi; again your "states' rights" example.
/c
August 1, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink