« A strange, strange libertarianism | Main | How to not alienate whites »

Today's stupid analysis of Obama and blacks

23 Jun 2008 11:04 am

Well at least they did some reporting, but really:

Obama's formula for energizing blacks while appealing to whites relies in part on demonstrating independence from the more militant traditions of black politics and using rhetoric that spans race. He has opposed monetary reparations for descendants of slaves, for example. And he has said that he does not think his daughters should benefit from affirmative action, because they have had a "pretty good deal," and he has expressed openness to programs that could help disadvantaged whites, Latinos and women.

Wow, I'm impressed risking the support of the crucial "Reparations Lobby." You know it was the "militant tradition" that elected Adrian Fenty, Corey Booker, Deval Patrick, David Dinkins, Doug Wilder, Carol Mosely-Braun, Anthony Williams, Kurt Schmoke etc. I mean seriously. When was reparations ever a voting issue for black people? Obama is going to clean up among black voters and do really well among other voters--not because of deft machinations, but because black people are--say it with me MSM--Amer-i-cans. You know all those people complaining about the housing market, pissed of about the war. and shaking their heads at the public school system? Some of them happen to be black. I'm just waiting for the story that touts up Cynthia McKinney's efforts to challenge Obama for black voters. It's coming.

Comments (5)

This is a perfect example of a situation in which a writer has a point they want to make and then tries to think of evidence to support it, instead of the other way around as it should be. This was clearly the best they could come up with, which is pretty pathetic.

Posted by Matthew | June 23, 2008 11:58 AM

As tone deaf as you find this article to be, Obama is running a deracialized campaign for this very reason, so he can appeal to white voters and black alike but mostly to assure white voters that he isn't a radical or militant. Why else would he need to come out against reparations? It is a non-issue and most of black America knows it, but there are white people who believe that's just a consistent topic for discussion. So, yea the article is somewhat silly but there is some merit in its general point, he has to be careful not to act too friendly to the Negroes.

Posted by th | June 23, 2008 12:27 PM

This is a perfect example of not explicitly wealth-based capitol. Because most white people are reporters and trained to believe a certain white, centrist perspective is "objective" they never realize when they're writing explicitly from the point of view of their own cultural fears, and they don't have to.

I'd blame Al Sharpton, but there are plenty of high profile black folks who are far closer to mainstream black opinion on the subject of reparations, the MSM just isn't interested in talking to those people, and those people aren't quite as pressed to be on camera.

Posted by dnA | June 23, 2008 12:28 PM

Even stupider, IMO, was the implication of Wellstein's not-so-subtle invocation of the "ex-felon vote" as a possible (positive) factor for Sen. Obama's chances in November. Yes, it's nice to know that in some states, official or unofficial efforts have been made to apprise ex-cons of their legitimate voting rights: especially in Florida, which, IIRC has had problems with this issue for years. But his hamhanded "reminder" of the relative "blackness" of said voters - and their presumed inclination towards Obama - struck me as fairly clueless - and (IMHO) more than non-trivially prejudiced. Although Wellstein did obliquely mention the "soft on crime" aspect, it still read as dumb and condescending - but then again, remember this IS the Los Angeles Times.

Posted by Jay C | June 23, 2008 1:07 PM

To read more stupid things that Obama Beleives go to this truth site. www.theobamaplan.com

Posted by mike | June 23, 2008 4:10 PM