Year End Double Issue: The Color of Racism and THIS YEAR IN RACE

After a holiday hiatus last week, we offer a year-end double issue of TWIR. We begin with THIS WEEK's news about the replacement for Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat from Illinois and end with our traditional replay of your comments from the year.

The Color of Racism

As has been widely reported, embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich used his power to appoint a replacement to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama to name long-time Illinois political figure Roland Burris as Obama's would-be successor. Senate Leader Harry Reid has said that the Senate will use its constitutional prerogative to refuse to seat any person appointed by Blagojevich, and fellow Democrats from Illinois to Washington, including Barack Obama, have indicated that Burris should not be seated.

Racial discourse was abundant yesterday, first in the racist notion that Burris was only nominated because he is African American and later by U.S. Congressman Bobby Rush, who issued an absurd statement suggesting that a refusal to seat Burris would smack of racism.

At the press conference to announce Burris's appointment yesterday, Rush said this:

Let me just remind you that there presently is no African- American in the U.S. Senate. Let me remind you that the state of Illinois and the people in the state of Illinois and their collective wisdom, have sent two African-Americans to the U.S. Senate. That makes a difference. This is just not a state of Illinois matter, although it’s (INAUDIBLE) to appoint and (INAUDIBLE) — which is in the state of Illinois, but it (INAUDIBLE) — it has tremendous national importance — national importance. We need to have not just one African-American in the U.S. Senate. We need to have many African-Americans in the U.S. Senate.

So I applaud the governor for his decision. And I will ask you to not hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer. Separate, if you will, the appointee from the appointed. Ronald Burris is worthy. He is the only one, I believe, that could stand in the gap (INAUDIBLE) time, and gather the confidence — reestablish the confidence of the people of the state of Illinois.

A few minutes later, Rush added:

This is a matter of national importance. There are no African- Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone — any U.S. senator, who’s sitting in the Senate, right now, wants to go on record to deny one African-American for being seated in the U.S. Senate. I don’t think they want to go on record doing that. And so, I intend to take that argument to the Congressional Black Caucus. I intend to take that argument to the senators. I intend to start with our own senator, Durbin, who’s a friend of mine, and I’m sure that he will stand ready to be reasoned with.

Then, on the CBS Early Show on Wednesday, he continued:

You know, the recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where schoolchildren -- where you have officials standing in the doorway of schoolchildren. You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Ark. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connor and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position.

Finally, Burris defended Rush's comments:

Burris, appearing this morning on WGN-TV, defended Rush's comments and denied the South Side congressman -- whom Burris invited to yesterday's U.S. Senate announcement--was playing racial politics.

Rush, Burris said, was just relating "facts and not playing the race card and not being emotional about it."

We'll be as clear as we can here: Bobby Rush is way out of line. Not only is he using race in a way that is counterproductive to the cause of advancing racial equality, but he (and Roland Burris) seem to be being used by Blagojevich because of their race to attract support for his defense. It is an immediate backslide of the symbolic progress that was made over the course of the campaign and in the last few months with respect to how race matters in American politics.

Bobby Rush is a former Black Panther, who clearly has the interests of racial progress and equality at heart. In this case, though, he is simply wrong. However, the distinction is more nuanced than many recognize.

Rush is absolutely right about the fact that Obama's successor should be African American. While the issue of no Black members of the Senate is larger and more complicated than this one case, given the context, it would be inappropriate for a replacement for Barack Obama to not be African American. This does not, as some reactionary commenters have asserted, make this a "Black seat." Given the history of Blacks in the Senate (there have only been three since Reconstruction) and the fact that Obama, who left because of being elected to higher office, left the Senate under positive political circumstances, an appointment should be as similar to Obama in terms of politically-relevant criteria -- ideology, policy preference and, indeed, race -- as possible. It's up to the people of Illinois whether an African American will hold the seat once the law provides for an election. But when the law calls for an appointment, the appointing official should be attentive to what the people preferred in the last election. (This is why it was appropriate for Obama to send a list of possible replacements to Blagojevich.)

Rush is also correct in his history. It would be quite negligent to not be attentive to the propensity for Whites to (consciously or otherwise) block progress leading to racial equality.

Where he and Burris err is in applying those principles to this situation. Harry Reid said that he and the Senate Democrats would not seat an appointee by Blagojevich weeks before we knew who that appointee would be. If Blagojevich would have stepped aside and Lt. Governor Pat Quinn would have appointed Burris, no Democrat would have been interested in blocking the appointment.

It is a smart, racially-charged political move by Blagojevich to 1) refuse to resign and then 2) appoint a Black successor so that he can create a coalition of support that was not there previously. By calling on Rush and Burris to not only defend Burris's appointment, but to defend Blagojevich generally, he believes that he is making it difficult for Barack Obama, other Black officials, and White Democrats to continue to pursue him politically. He is wrong, though. Bobby Rush and Roland Burris are being used. Perhaps they know it; perhaps they do not.

Rush may have "played the race card," but it is not an anti-White card, as some have suggested; it is an anti-Black card that he unwittingly is stuck holding. It is fundamentally racist (that is, anti-Black) because he is allowing himself to be used as a pawn in Blagojevich's political defense. Roland Burris would be a fine U.S. Senator, and under other circumstances, he would be a good choice for an appointment until the next election. Under these circumstances, his selection is simply a finger in the eye of the Democratic establishment that has abandoned Blagojevich. It is an attempt to make them chose between appearing to be racist and supporting the (perhaps prematurely) disgraced Illinois governor. Barack Obama didn't bite, issuing a statement almost immediately stating that the Senate should not seat Burris. We aren't biting, either.

There is, of course, an alternate possibility. Some have argued that Barack Obama is "using" right-wing anti-gay pastor Rick Warren as an opportunity to win support among those who expect that Obama is too liberal. Getting criticized by the left is one way to show the right that one is not too far from center. It is possible that Rush and Burris are playing Malcolm X to Obama's MLK in the sense that they give him a chance to prove to skeptical Whites that he will always come down on the side of "his people" (as Saxby Chambliss would say). So it is possible that we are being unfair to Rush and Burris: they may be skillfully manipulating conservative Whites into supporting Obama so that Obama has more of a mandate to govern. We doubt that this is the case, but it would be unwise to ignore the possibility.

We have a lot of respect for Bobby Rush and Roland Burris, and we certainly do not question their commitment to advancing civil rights in America. Unfortunately, as we all do from time to time, they goofed this one and are contributing to a counterproductive political maneuver that ultimately will fail. Stephen is spending the holidays in Western Pennsylvania and has already heard at least one conservative quip "They say that if we don't support the Black guy we are racist." It is not Rush's job to win over the hearts and minds of those who believe racism is a joke or an excuse, but this political stunt is merely fueling the fire of racial animosity at a time when it is not strategically wise to do so. It is an unfortunate turn of events at the end of a year that has moved us further toward racial equality than any individual year in the last four decades.

THIS YEAR IN RACE

It would be ridiculous for us to try to recap how relevant 2008 has been to advancing the cause of racial equality in America. We hope that readers stumbling across this blog for the first time will browse through the archives and look at what we have offered each week throughout this historic year. Instead, we continue the tradition of reproducing selected comments from TWIR over the past year (see our wrap ups from 2007 and 2006, as well). Since we have been quite busy (and quite public) this year, we also offer a few comments from our YouTube pages and Facebook Group page, where appropriate. As always, we reproduce these comments without editing or further comment: the good, the bad and the ugly. Enjoy!

Alex and Darla said...
Thanks for this blog...I am assigning it to my women's history students for discussion!
1/7/08 11:13 AM

jonm said...
Interesting discussion of tolerance. One might argue that I can be tolerant of views I disagree with but not be approving of them. So, what would it mean to be tolerant of those views? Well, perhaps it means that I "allow" that position to be heard (in the case of those with power) or do not dispute the right to express those views (in the case of the powerful and the less powerful). But can't I express disagreement or disapproval of a view and still be tolerant of it? Can't I say I am not going to have my convention here as an expression of my disapproval but I still tolerate your expression of that view?
2/11/08 11:24 AM

jonm said...
Many people might say "Why are these two guys wasting their time watching The View?" But this is where a lot of people get their information and ideas. And this might have been the only place where many Americans encountered a discussion of these issues. So, I think we need more such (good) analysis of what we encounter in the media. Nice work!
3/31/08 10:39 AM

Anonymous said...
I check out Dictionary.com for the meaning of racist. Here is what I found:According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, racist has 3 definitions, not just 2. Joy said 2 of them, but the third is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races". According to WordNet® by Princeton University:Racist (adjective): 1. based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion Racist (noun): 1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others According to the American Heritage DictionaryRacism: n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. So the word racist or racism doesn't just refer to a group who feels they have the right to dominate. It can apply to an individual who hates others on the basis of race or religion. So, by definition, anyone can be a racist. And to those people who think that white people haven't been oppressed: Nazi racists killed millions of Jews, and gypsies, Polish people, etc. They were white and were victims of racism. As a matter of fact, according to Online Etymology Dictionary, the word racist originated to describe Nazis:1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.Racism isn't going to end until we are all honest about it, starting with the fact that anyone is capable of being racist.
4/16/08 4:30 PM

George Lujack said...
Charlton McIlwain, I feel so guilty for being born white! I wish I could know how it is to be a victim of racism in America, like you are, so I could cry along with you and you would acknowledge my tears as being genuine. But alas, I am white and I could never know or understand such suffering. What could white people do to make blacks in America feel better about racism? I know... Elect Barack Obama! White people should give more to blacks by means of reparations, welfare, affirmative action and undeserved token appointments of prestige. Perhaps whites should become slaves to blacks for 200-years. After all, that is the path to true equality and healing!

Anonymous said...
I think obama has situational ethics too. He only addresses the hate speech with his associates when he is forced to and then it is only half heartedly. He painted granny as a racist in his "big speech" and in another interview I thought he said she was like all white people....what does that mean?
3/30/08 12:49 PM

Brandon said...
It is not deplorable to say that 9/11 may have occurred because US foreign policy.It is unfortunate to deliver the message so artlessly as to allow other people (conservatives) to frame the comments in way that somehow implies "We deserved it" and by extension the people who died deserved to die.It is unlucky for Obama that these words came out and that he had it respond to them.It is selfish for Reverend Wright to go out and repeat his statements without considering the blow back that would come at Obama. Especially after Obama went out of his way to embrace Reverend Wright while dismissing the statements as out of context (which they were).It is thoughtless for Reverend Wright to say that Obama's speech was political in the sense it was somehow duplicitous or dishonest when Obama said he had never heard the 9/11 remarks or didn't know what Reverend Wright had been preaching for 20 some years. And yes it is “deplorable” to suggest that he and others would not be surprised if the U.S. government was involved in systematically infecting the black people with AIDS!For everything the the United States has done wrong and the list is a long one. To suggest the the US government created or spread the infection of AIDS willfully (not through ignorance of ignoring the problem or not wanting to face it)is horribly hateful. The Tuskegee experiments are horrible and terrible. But if true, creating the AIDS virus would be a horror unlike any other.If the charge were true (especially creating it)then the United States would be responsible for the most evil, cruel, ungodly act ever committed by human beings. Nazism and fascism would be pebbles next to monument to sin that the United States would have created if it is true. Reverand Wright spoke about this in the Q&A session after his speech. This would be a crime that is unparalleled in human history when considering the scope and magnitude of death and damage caused by the disease, not to deny that there have not been other uses of biological weapons throughout human history or that those horrors are somehow less than important.If he really believes that the US created HIV/AIDS and purposefully infected black people with it then he needs to do more than say he read books that we haven't read. It is encumbant upon to him to back up these incredibly serious statements. And dismiss them with statements like, "I'm a pastor and not a political figure"On the plus side I have new summer reading to do.This point is really indefensible and honestly for a guy who was right on about 11 out of 12 points it isn't so bad. But to defend everything this man said because you may agree with him on his other points and you want Obama to be elected is wrong. Pobody is Nerfect! And sometimes people who we like disappoint us by saying and doing terrible things. His statement on HIV/AIDS doesn't make him crazy it just makes him wrong on that particular point.When we play into the paradigm that we have to defend even the indefensible we lose sight of what really matters and leave ourselves vulnerable to charges of ignorance and blind adherence and these are not intellectually tenable positions at least not in the long run.Reverend Wright may have dealt a fatal blow to Obama presidential run with his NAACP conference (I hope not) and its doubly disappointing coming off the fantastic Bill Moyer's interview he did.Here is hoping for the best!
4/30/08 6:58 PM

Anonymous said...
Why is it so "deplorable" to feel that the U.S. is above infecting a part of it population with HIV/aids. The U.S. government was not above removing and murdering Native Americans, enslaving blacks, or lynched blacks in large numbers through the Nadir.We are talking of the same U.S. government that ignored the plea of Jews during WWII, telling Roosevelt to bomb railroad lines to help save the lives of Jews in the Holocaust. Or the government that put Japanese Americans in prison camps because they were Japanese.This is the same government that is cited for human rights violation every year, and commits acts of terror (according to its own definition of terror) against its own population and the populations of other countries. Nope, Brandon your right the U.S. is above deplorable acts. How dare Rev. Wright question the U.S. government.
5/1/08 6:08 PM

Anonymous said...
I have learned over these many years and from traveling that racism knows no color. It is displayed by people of every culture. It is wrong - and allowing for mitigating circumstances for any group only permits it to fester and grow. The greatest and first lesson I received: as a child of nine after coming to the US I became close friends with a girl who like me was not part of the popular group. I was foreign and she was half-black and half-white. I could understand why I was not really accepted but not why she had no friends - she was an American from birth. So I asked her, and she told me: white people hate me because I'm half black and black people hate me because I'm half white. That wasn't just true of friends it was also true of family. At family festivities her mother's family (black) and her father's family (white) were never there at the same time as they did not get along at all. Imagine how much more positive things could have been for her if these two families had tried to learn from each other and come to an understanding if not friendship.
5/8/08 12:03 AM

Anonymous said...
Look, people that read the blogs. Racism is the term used by this website to represent top down systemic oppression. It can also be called individual verses systemic racism. People, stop being hung up on the fact that all people are racist. We are. Bigotry knows no color. White people can feel the sting of bigotry. However, they can never feel the sting of systemic oppression. Thats the point. Lets stop getting hung up on words.
5/8/08 4:11 PM

Brad said...
Buchanan's comments may have been "bigotted" or unPC, but nothing he said wasn't true, about black people or anyone else.www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com

5/9/06 6:12 PM

isaacjosephson said...
You look good on video, Charlton. I'm sure you made Rupert Murdoch very proud!
7/23/08 6:17 AM

Sandra said...
Actually, I DID think Barack Obama had--and still has--a "chance in hell." Perhaps you'll need to forgive me for being overly optimistic--but I've been a Barack Obama supporter ever since I heard he was running! Not all Whites are idiots! Let's agree that race IS an issue for many people--but it isn't the only issue, and it can draw voters both ways--to vote against, or to vote for. More importantly, many of us really do pay attention to the issues and to what our Current Occupant has been doing, and we REALLY don't want a repeat. I vote for the person--man or woman, Black or White--who presents a stance on the issues that I appreciate. There are others like me--people who really care about more than the color of someone's skin (or political affiliation!).
9/2/08 11:27 PM

Nichole said...
I think I have to unsubscribe my rss from this blog. I thought I was going to be reading something constructive about issues of race in our country and what to do about them. Instead what I have seen is a message that further spreads hate by labeling others and stereotyping.This is not a blog about racism... this is a blog about being antirepublican.I'm offended and disgusted, but mostly I'm disappointed.May we please have a constructive blog to read? For example,-here are the issues... and here is what you should do about them. These are the senators you should write to, vote for, etc...You're doing the exact same thing the republicans did about the lipstick on a pig comment... stretching what has been said to fit your agenda. Are you the pot or the kettle for writing this? I'm not sure, but I'm getting off the stove.Oh, and if this is how Obama supporters think and feel, perhaps as an independant I need to vote for McCain, or maybe throw my vote away on a third party, or maybe not even vote at all.
9/16/08 12:14 AM

Kim said...
"Constructive" defined as laying out the issues and telling readers what to do and for whom to vote as a result...strikes me as passive. There are plenty of sources for that. My precinct captain and any candidate or special interest website, for starters.I agree with many but not all points raised by "This Week in Race." However, each one provokes me to consider hard questions about why I agree or disagree, my opinions on these issues and what the campaigns are saying, and make up my mind for myself. That is what I see as the purpose.Nichole, your last comment about reading a blog, making an assumption about it and about a whole group of voters as a result--and using that assumption as a basis for what to do with your vote...wow. Consider that such a comment doesn't gibe with wanting to read and know the issues as a basis for deciding.
9/16/08 8:56 PM

Anonymous said...
I think it is good to have conversations around the issues that are raised in TWIR. I don’t think that 100% agreement or passive reading is the point of the blog in the first place (or ever a good idea). In that spirit, I want to react to the first posters concerns and raise a few points and concerns of my own. I admire that you are reading it; I personally tend to only read stuff that I like—preaching to the choir. You are the brave one here.No, all democrats don’t agree with TWIR, so I wouldn’t worry about voting any certain way based on being put off by this blog. It would be my guess, in fact, that most people do not notice or digest racist (and sexist) messages with the depth of analysis that you find here: democrat or republican. Most people never even think they are receiving a racial message—and just digest it unconsciously. That is the point of a close reading: to illuminate the message and talk about it in daylight.I know you said you are independent, but let me grapple with Sarah Palin as an example of really analyzing gender—as a way of reaching out. I am a democrat, and won’t be voting for her (not in a million years), but have extreme compassion to the sexism that this woman faces.Questions regarding her child rearing disturb me greatly—and my own internal reaction to her having a tiny baby—I had to realize that on some level even I was assuming that WOMEN should always care for children instead of men. Obviously her husband (or a nanny) can care for the child. And that is what very powerful, famous, motivated, rich, elite, (you decide) people do. I can judge that, but I shouldn’t say that men can raise kids that way but women never should. I’m sure that republican and democrat alike, many of us had to work through that moment—even if it is being framed that the democrats where sexist and the republicans were not. Democrat or republican: this issue (although used as a tactic) is about identity.

Another example: lipstick on a pig. I personally don’t think Obama was attacking HER simply because he has never (to my knowledge) waged an attack as petty and demeaning as that on anyone—it does not appear to be his style. However, the fact that we are *suddenly* realizing that a statement like that has sexist connotations, which it does, speaks to how sexist our culture is. I think a statement like that really gets back to how decorative women are expected to be, puts down “ugly” women for trying to be attractive, makes fun of bigger women perhaps (pig = fat), etc. I actually have total empathy for the people who really feel he was attacking her. If he was (and I don’t think he was): they are right, that is a horrible way to go! Democrat or republican: this issue (although used as a tactic) is about identity.What I am trying to say here is that this isn’t about political parties. This is about breaking out of the system where only white men can be leaders (at the highest positions)—and FOR ONCE noticing all of the little ways (and huge ways) that racism infests our communication. Just because you (or I as a white person) do not see how a phrase or comment could be racist, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It doesn’t mean that it is. But I say: read the blog. Try to grasp why it may be a racist attack. And commit yourself (regardless of how you vote) to trying to understand the complex, sometimes subtle, sometimes unconscious ways that we believe in our hearts that one race is superior, or one gender is superior. As I white person, I think for me, engaging with issues of race is something I have to do, I consider it an ethical obligation. And for every white person who actually worries about racism, there are a zillion who don’t. So I have a lot of work.

The history of racism on this planet is staggering. Anything we can do to continue to create a racially equitable world is worth our time.Both parties are totally capable of racism and sexism—just as all people are. I think the policies of the Republican Party do less to address these inequalities—for lots of reasons you may disagree with—so maybe that is what you are frustrated with. You don’t have to agree with that. Perhaps the authors of this blog are more involved with the political race—hoping that Barack will win and losing sight of the larger identity piece. I still think the information on this blog is extremely valuable. It feels democrat heavy because a black man is running on the democratic ticket—and yes, the Republican Party (unconsciously or not) is using racism as a voting tool. Same thing with the Democratic Party using sexism as a voting tool with Palin. Keep reading. Listen for the messages about how racism does function. Forget about the election, just like I am trying to with Palin, and think about the cultural messages that we are all receiving. Do these messages put down women? Do they encourage hatred of the African Americans? And then remember the election when you actually choose a person to vote for.
9/16/08 10:23 PM

Karla from the 'Burgh said...
Hi there, this is my first post to your site. I am actually an old friend of Stephen's from the 'Burgh, and I thought I would weigh in. First let me state that I am a Republican with a very open mind, yet very strong opinions. I did watch the speeches last evening, and paid attention to the items you had mentioned in TWIR yesterday. You were correct, the crowd was almost all white men and women, no suprise there unfortunately. You were also correct in your prediction regarding Ronald Reagan. To be honest, I think RR was one probably the best president of the 20th century. Most Republicans yearn for those Reagan years again in some ways. However, that's a whole other story. I do not believe that Obama is or was portrayed as a shallow orator who has political ambitions but no true love of country. I think Obama is an extremely intelligent man who loves his country and wants to change it. The debate starts as to how he wants to change it. I don't believe he is seen as someone that doesn't get it because of his race, I believe it is because of where he stands on the issues, and what his Presidential agenda is. People made that same comment about Hillary as well, myself included. What I took away from last night was that it was classic partisanship. It is alive and well. I believe that the Republicans would vote for someone whether they were black, white, purple, or some other color as long as they shared the same beliefs. When Fred Thompson used the words "smooth talkers and big talkers", two people came to mind to me, Bill and Hillary. Not once did I even think it was a racist comment. I talked with numerous friends today and we laughed because they thought of Hillary and Bill too. In my opinion there were not any racist undertones, only partisan ones, and rightly so. Furthermore, when Thompson mentioned the old beltway crowd, I would like to know how many people out there thought he meant anyone on the Obama/Biden ticket. My first thoughts were of your typical white political players, Teddy Kennedy,etc. McCain is conservative, and for awhile there, I was concerned he wasn't conservative enough. I was very concerned that he would pick the usual white male senator type candidate. Instead, he impressed me with Palin. The only better pick would have been Condi Rice. I think we need to remember that no matter who wins, this is a historical election, and we should be proud of our country. That doesn't mean that more work doesn't need done, but if you go back a decade or so ago, would you have predicted these two tickets? I was excited for the Dems to get Obama and I was thrilled that McCain didn't select an "old white suit from Washington". As far as the pictures of the classroom students goes, if there would have been a true representation of US classrooms, then the McCain camp would be under fire for not enough diversity in the photos. Do you see my point in this? I think the Republicans HAD to make a point to show they were inclusive, otherwise they would be under fire for not doing that. How do they win?Lastly, I will continue to watch for any racist stereotypes, etc. I do have to say though, that all I have seen is partisanship, partisanship, and more partisanship. If Barack Obama, or any black man would have been on the Republican ticket, I would have voted for them without thinking twice. I tend to think that Republicans are so partisan and set in their ways, that most of them would do the same. I am proud of Obama for going on the O'Reilly Factor, I am proud of Obama for defending Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter. I am proud of our country for electing Obama to be the Democratic party nominee, and I am thankful for the freedom of speech that allows us to debate this very topic.
9/3/08 9:22 PM

Jeremiah said...
RONALD REAGAN! Do you mean the president responsible for the 80's a time when the prison population of african americans nearly quadrupled, crack cocaine ripped through inner city communities, (just to name a few a things) where and what did the president do during that time people so dearly remember. The Reagan years which you idolize bring back harsh memories for some black people but many whites, republicans seem to be oblivious to situations faced during that time by black people. This kind of resonates in your comments. Obama has been portrayed as several things throughout this election I think a shallow orator is the kindest implied message and frame he receieved in a long time. Regarding Guiliani, I think many black males growing up in New York City during his "GLORY" days understand me when I say #$%^#^%Guiliani. He has a record of having issues with black leaders(google David Dinkins, police brutality is okay!,police state)The problem I have with the "smooth talkers" satement is that Bill Clinton was referred to as the first black president so it still rubs me the wrong way.And what does partisan mean anyway..AAHH I hope Obama gets elected for many reasons but overall I just want an election process with integrity and a president who will atleast help three fifths of the population........
9/4/08 9:17 PM

Sandra said...
You inspire me to watch what I really had thought to avoid, gentlemen! I look forward to your interpretations and analysis!Sandy Moore-Furneaux
9/2/08 11:17 PM

Monica said...
Well, first off, y'all totally had it for the themes--impressive. So enjoyed reading the entire weeks analysis of the RNC. Awesome.I'd like to add/suggest a possible theme with implicit racist undertones--"Celebrity"Convincing people that Obama is a celebrity I think plays upon the role that we (white people) frequently perceive as an appropriate role for African Americans. I think the celebrity claims, and the idea that he is “merely” a crowd pleaser, a skilled orator in this case, feeds the sensibility that African Americans can best be understood in terms of their entertainment value—and not in terms of their intellectual or political value. It’s like saying, “yeah, of course, he’s really entertaining, they sometimes are, but seriously, let’s leave the politics up to the white people, mmkay?” Amongst other things, one thing missing from this “analysis” (Obama is a celebrity) is the reality that black culture values expressive communication styles, more so than white culture. (Side note: think Rev. Wright). White American culture is not as verbally and nonverbally expressive (emotions included) as many other cultures (including Mexican culture and African American culture). I have witnessed this misunderstanding in the classroom many times. I would suggest that part of the critique of him being an “entertainer” is a cultural misunderstanding (on purpose) to lead (white) people to feel that he is not a real player in this election. I think the “celebrity” claim is culturally insensitive and yes, totally racist.
9/5/08 10:09 PM

MomSandy said...
All of this is making shudders run down my spine. I couldn't even finish the video, "The Rise of the United Socialist States of America," because it was so full of misinformation. I'm appalled and ashamed of my fellow Americans and parents--those who are teaching their young children obnoxious--indeed, truly noxious--racist behavior. Yet in some ways, I can see a good coming out of this. No more can Whites claim that racism doesn't exist in America anymore, that it's all "gotten better." The racist rhetoric reveals the truth--it is NOT better. Maybe, just maybe, people will look back and be ashamed and will strive for true change. Then again, maybe not. I will pray for true change, and some of us will work towards it, but the vitriol is a nasty disease--one that is highly infectious, I fear. I am so ashamed.
11/1/08 2:25 PM

Anonymous said...
Five years and a Super Bowl appearance later, McNabb has proven not only that Limbaugh is a bigot, but that he knows as little about sports as he does about politics.Oh, snap!
10/27/08 11:58 PM

Anonymous said...
I blog at Daily Kos and left a link to your blog and RaceProject.org in the comments of this diary on reaction to Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama at the site Free Republic.I listen to Dr. Caliendo when he appears on WGN-AM overnight, and think you all do a helluva job. If Obama wins this thing, we'll need your valuable input more than ever.
10/19/08 1:57 PM

Anonymous said...
Thank you for putting this all up, together, in one place. It is sad to read, but needs to be discussed nonetheless. It makes me sad to see people so at home in their hatred. It makes me sad to see candidates afraid to stand up and denounce the hatred. There is more they could be doing to stop this and less they should be doing to fuel it. McCains face when the woman said "he's an arab" was the look of a man who created Frankensteins monster.
10/13/08 10:50 PM

Anonymous said...
What I most appreciate about your column this week is the calm, thoughtful, well-reasoned method by which you proceed through damning fact after damning fact. McCain and Palin are creating a monster; McCain appears to be starting to recognize it, yet Palin continues her over-the-top, ludicrous attacks. The sad thing is that so many want to believe her slander.Someone we both know as a savvy political observer at OU with a pretty good knack for prediction told me today, "The race is over. There is nothing McCain can do to retrieve his position at this point." I truly hope that person is correct, as I fear for our country should McCain, and worse, Palin, gain access to the power of the presidency.Sandy M-F
10/15/08 2:45 AM

Sam Sommers said...
Very interesting post. I raised some similar issues on my blog when discussing the "real American" comments:http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-of-small-talk/200810/in-search-the-real-america
10/30/08 9:56 AM

Dr. N said...
First, the Bradley Effect doesn't measure racism. I'm not sure if you think it does. Do you? If someone tells a pollster that they are voting for the black candidate because they don't want to appear racist, that doesn't make them a racist.Second, I think the Bradley Effect is more myth than reality (even in the race that the supposed effect is named after). I've tried to find a peer reviewed study that shows evidence of an effect, but have found none. Do you know of any?
11/23/08 1:55 PM

Anonymous said...
I saw the "cool" video for the first time last night. I don't think it's overtly racist. Many of us thought the younger Bill Clinton was cool (maybe it was his coolness that made many call him the first Black president). However, in the SNL video they also linked coolness to temperament and not just to style. BTW for the idiotic Stephanoplous's for the record, Alan Keyes is not cool, Clarence Thomas not cool; JC Watts uncool; Colon Powell, smart, but not cool. I should also say 50 cent not cool, OJ Simpson lost his cool(in Vegas not Brentwood). Bobby Dinero, cool; Clint Eastwood, super cool, Mario Cuomo very cool so you see it's not a color thing, it a hip thing (something George would never understand).
12/19/08 4:09 PM

buddo1999 (2 months ago)
It was Adolph Hitler that spoke loud and proud, guilty of mass hypnosis..The people believed the promises and lies about the real agendaNow much of America falls for the same snare, (ahhh Im going to get my share)Star struck at fancy lawyers words, Disingenuous bla bla bla.. They do not really need to know much about facts, just rock my world stuff They sit and swoon fooled by promises of the moon.. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

chiefnugt (2 months ago)
I think this is crap - it is a big deal that Palin has been formally exposed as a liar and abuser of power by a bipartisan panel including 10 republicans. I don't see how she can make any argument that her opponents can't be trusted because of who they met with years ago when she's been found to have abused the public trust in her CURRENT position. I think that's a really big deal.

gmcjetpilot (2 months ago)

Does this dude [Stephen] seem like a woman, he almost looks like Palin. I agree it is going so bad for McCain but the Palin camp has spun it and of course....... LIED. They said it was partisan Obama supporters that come to this finding? WHAT THE F? Do republicans think we are stupid. MY GOSH THEY ARE LIARS.

okiedragonlady2 (3 months ago)

Silly?? And they didn't even notice that poor Palin didn't have a clue what the Bush Doctrine was. Your newscast [Stephen on CBS2 Chicago] is rather fluffy and full of air.

mjkopitzke (3 months ago)
I really appreciate the fact that even though we are aware of your [Stephen's] political standings, you can still analyze each side fairly and honestly.

TheBritishWatcher (3 months ago)

lmao, just slightly biased [Stephen's analysis on CBS2 Chicago]

nbear69 (3 months ago)
LMFAO, what exactly are you watching 'watcher' it certainly wasn't this video clip!

FindIntegrity (3 months ago)
I agree with Watcher. The analyst is not objective (expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations). But that is understandable, i is difficult not to be biased when one is from the opposite party. Just as it would be difficult for a conservative to be unbiased towards a Dem candidate. As and Indie, I avoid the experts and do all my own research.

allencrider (6 months ago)

Hah! You wingnuts insist that crazy preachers are going to cause John McCain to win the presidency. But you forget McCain has two crazy preachers hanging around his neck. I think this is the year that crazy preachers were kicked out of the national political dialog for good!That means the right-wing evangelicals are out of the GOP's inner circles.

greg2009 (5 months ago)
Obama has to get at least 40% of the white vote nationwide which will be difficult. The lowest I see Obama getting (no foul ups)is 35% nationwide.3rd party candidates will benefit Obama because they tend to pull away from Republicans and yes some of the white vote. If Obama gets 35% of whites he need overwhelming support from blacks and hispanics. He'll get it from blacks, hispanics is tough to get. Blacks and Hispanic must make up 30% of the electorate-this represents their % in the gen pop.

The following comments relate to Stephen's analysis of Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama. Warming: some of these are quite crude.

osrav (1 month ago)
You know what Oprah eats for breakfast?I'll tell you...STUPID CEREAL!!!

cscbill (1 month ago)
She doesnt cereal idiot! She is a very successful wealthy black woman who is in support of a new day!Obama is sent from heaven!

thejoker223 (1 month ago)

wait, i think you mean hell.

cscbill (1 month ago)
No heaven! I know what I meant to say. He's sent from HEAVEN! Most people talk the talk but dont walk the walk, Obama is living more Christian like then anybody!

thejoker223 (4 weeks ago)
so... are you saying christians kill babies? Well, i'm a christian, and i dont think Jesus said "Let men kill inocent children, before they get a chance" I dont know why any true christian, jew, or even muslem would think he's God-like.

mrscorie (3 weeks ago)
I agree. And so is Michelle! I could never be a First Lady because if Sarah Palin would have talked about my husband like that I would have said when you learn what the VP does based on the Constitution then you can have something to say. My 11 year old daughter knows more about civics than you do. But that is just me.

osrav (1 month ago)
lmaoget a real religion dumbass
:p lol

TruenoBlues (1 month ago)
Folks, keep this respectful, and don't bash other's religion... You will end up looking like an ass, even in the anonymity of the internet. A politician's religion has almost
nothing to do with how they govern. Listen to Dr. Caliendo speak before you
comment, and you may gain a greater understanding of politics.

gotcha109 (4 weeks ago)
Niger host, nigger president, ouch..like she would be as happy or supporting if he was white...think about it the fat hippocrat

eltel0686 (4 weeks ago)
u r such a racist idiot

tag1989 (3 weeks ago)
its racist fuckers like u which
is the reason why black people dont like voting for fat white racist
motherfukers like uurrrmm you.

mrscorie (3 weeks ago)
Well if you look at the
alternative, the two on the GOP ticket, its a no brainer.

nycsky38 (2 weeks ago)

there is always so white dumb fuck who wants to keep america stupid and
ignorant like him and his dumb cunt parents

Ama005 (2 weeks ago)
ignorance is what is wrong with this country.. READDDDDD GET EDUCATEDDDDDDDD

liquidaqua (3 weeks ago) It's a lie that Oprah hosted Obama as a presidential candidate on her show. I quote Oprah"At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a
candidate, I made the decision NOT to use my show as a platform for ANY of the
candidates."

liquidaqua (3 weeks ago)
Oprah has had Obama as a guest twice -- in January 2005 and
October 2006. Both occasions were BEFORE the Illinois senator officially
announced he was running for the White House.

bjohnson9993

A peek of the White House 2 weeks after the Obama's get in-

1) 10 broken down cars on the front lawn

2) Garden overflowing with Watermelons

3) Motorcade now will have 3 Black Escalade ESV's with 26in Chrome Rims equipped with a stolen stereo

4) 15 of his family members sitting on chairs in front of the white house playing cards

5) Flavored blunt wrappers on the sidewalk

6) A pen full of chickens

7) A monkey as a pet