Beware of White Men Bearing Gifts

[metta 0]

from here

Beware of White Men Bearing Gifts

James Wolcott is a Vanity Fair contributing editor.

I've never bought the pre-championship palaver that the Republicans were itching keen to face Hillary Clinton in the fall, that her mere presence in the race would energize their white-dumpling demoralized base into mobilizing into peasant mobs ready to storm Frankenstein's castle. The party's true savants had underestimated Hillary when she first ran for Senate and saw Rick Lazio's ears get pinned to the mat, and were unlikely to duplicate that error. I believe that they're far more wary of the Clinton machine than the Obama phenomenon because a phenomenon can be pricked or pop of its own accord, leaving behind a melting irridescence, whereas a machine like Clinton's feeds on the negativity thrown at it, a juggernaut nightmare designed to keep the opposition guessing over every move and plunge Andrew Sullivan into clammy angst ("I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday").

And now along comes Wayne Barrett in The Village Voice, persuasively arguing and methodically documenting that the original Obama infatuation emanating from such untrustworthies as Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh, William Bennett, George Will, and others was indeed a hydra-headed head fake:

Conservative pundits slammed Hillary early and hard, exploiting every opportunity to widen the racial divide among Democrats. Though their party is so white that the networks have no ethnic exit-poll data to analyze, these reliable partisans have expressed shock at a number of supposedly race-baiting Clinton comments, with the New York Post's top campaign columnist even calling Bill and Hillary "modern-day George Wallaces, standing in the White House door."

Once Obama became the apparent nominee, especially after the Wisconsin primary on February 19, these same pundits began turning on him (though, it has now become clear, perhaps a bit prematurely).

As often as some of them have declared that Clinton is the most beatable Democrat, their own agenda suggested otherwise.

[my italics] George Will may have inadvertently tipped this card when he wrote after Obama prospered on Super Tuesday: "The Republican Party's not-so-secret weapon always is the Democratic Party, with its entertaining thirst for living dangerously." It is possible, of course, that their hatred of the Clintons was all that drove these right-wing pundits in their early targeting of Hillary, but it's more likely that they were collectively so confident of beating the black guy in November that they became his unofficial advance team.

Case in point, consider the backflip performed by William Kristol in his dirtbag birdbath on the Times op-ed page.

Here's how Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and Fox News' prized analyst, opened his first New York Times op-ed column in January: "Thank you, Senator Obama. You've defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you're about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you." Kristol went on in that column to cite Obama's "ability and charm" and likened the Clinton slayer to Bobby Kennedy in another, calling him "charismatic" twice in the same paragraph, as well as "a skeptic of simple ideological stances, a gifted politician and an anti-politician."

[

snip

]

Of course, once Kristol concluded that Obama had the nomination in the bag, he delivered an extraordinary hit piece of his own in the Times. On February 25, Kristol clobbered Obama for removing his lapel flag pin, saying that Obama was "impugning the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose" to wear one. He also derided Michelle Obama's statement that she was "really proud of my country" for the "first time" in her adult life. "It is fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain," he said, rushing into the general election as precipitately as he rushed into Baghdad. "But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?"

With their lipless smiles and lidless eyes, conservative connivers don't even bother to disguise their duplicity, so proud and gleeful are they of their little tricks. And why shouldn't they be, when so many liberal bloggers and pundits are ready to fall for them?

Edited March 15, 2008 by metta

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

not surprising, someone posts a thread called beware of white men bearing gifts and no one bats an eye.

swap white with any other ethnicity and there woulda been a chit storm.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

swap white with any other ethnicity and there woulda been a chit storm.

If it was about pink men, fuhgeddaboutit!

[Scott & Lai 12]

not surprising, someone posts a thread called beware of white men bearing gifts and no one bats an eye.

swap white with any other ethnicity and there woulda been a chit storm.

VJ SOP, Charles....

[HAL 9000 96]

Nahhh its only a little thing called history that gets in the way.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Nahhh its only a little thing called history that gets in the way.

Only a very selective and distorted view of history.

[GaryC 7]

How racist and insulting can you get? Disgusting. If this is an example of a Hillary supporter then she doesn't deserve to win.

Edited March 16, 2008 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

metta,

Why be concerned about speculation over which candidate the right wing of the Republican Party wants to square off with in November? The polls have consistently shown that Obama would have a much better chance at beating McCain than Hillary, but nevertheless, the Democrats are having the White House essentially handed to them on a silver platter thanks to Dubbya. The economy and war in Iraq will have more of an impact on the Presidential Election than gender or race. Although it would be naive to think that gender and race don't have an impact, it's impossible to quantify in terms of saying that either Hillary or Obama will capture such and such demographic because of their gender or race, and in the case of Obama, he has shown that demographics don't really add up to squat as he has beat Hillary in nearly all demographics.

I'm just counting the days when you Hillary supporters will concede that Obama will be the Democratic nominee and you will do the right thing and throw your support behind him for the sake of the Party.

Here's an example of more things to come...

Obama's gains

A pretty stunning gain out of Iowa for Obama, where an Iowa Democratic official confirmed to me just now that the county convention results will translate into a 25-14-6 edge for Obama over Clinton and Edwards.

That's a gain of nine for the Illinois senator over the results reported in January, while Clinton lost one delegate. (Edwards lost eight.)

It's a welcome — and meaningful — gain for Obama on a tough weekend, and a result both of his long, hard work in Iowa and of a situation in which Clinton's attacks seem to be turning off party activists.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...amas_gains.html

[metta 0]

metta,

Why be concerned about speculation over which candidate the right wing of the Republican Party wants to square off with in November? The polls have consistently shown that Obama would have a much better chance at beating McCain than Hillary, but nevertheless, the Democrats are having the White House essentially handed to them on a silver platter thanks to Dubbya. The economy and war in Iraq will have more of an impact on the Presidential Election than gender or race. Although it would be naive to think that gender and race don't have an impact, it's impossible to quantify in terms of saying that either Hillary or Obama will capture such and such demographic because of their gender or race, and in the case of Obama, he has shown that demographics don't really add up to squat as he has beat Hillary in nearly all demographics.

I'm just counting the days when you Hillary supporters will concede that Obama will be the Democratic nominee and you will do the right thing and throw your support behind him for the sake of the Party.

Here's an example of more things to come...

Obama's gains

A pretty stunning gain out of Iowa for Obama, where an Iowa Democratic official confirmed to me just now that the county convention results will translate into a 25-14-6 edge for Obama over Clinton and Edwards.

That's a gain of nine for the Illinois senator over the results reported in January, while Clinton lost one delegate. (Edwards lost eight.)

It's a welcome — and meaningful — gain for Obama on a tough weekend, and a result both of his long, hard work in Iowa and of a situation in which Clinton's attacks seem to be turning off party activists.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...amas_gains.html

Steve, I shared the article on this board to make a point that the right wing conservatives are gaming the Dem primaries. Then again it is the writer's opinion.

In a tight race where neither candidate can pull a clear victory of reaching 2025 delegates yet, it will come down to the superdelegates. At this point, you think that when crunch time comes, the supers will tip over to BO's camp. That's possible too. But by the same token, it could be the other way around too. At this point, neither you nor I can predict with any degree of certainty which way it will unfold.

Another point I'd like to make, is that with closer media scrutiny now upon BO, the dynamics of the race has changed also. We will see that in the upcoming primaries.

I will concede that Obama is the nominee when he reaches the 2025 delegate count and conversely, I hope you will accept gracefully the nomination of Hillary as the nominee if that should be the case.

Until then, I will keep on rooting for my candidate of choice and continue sharing POVs that I feel need to be shared.

[metta 0]

not surprising, someone posts a thread called beware of white men bearing gifts and no one bats an eye.

swap white with any other ethnicity and there woulda been a chit storm.

When I posted that piece, I was thinking totally in the context of conservatives vs Dem candidates.

Hmmmm, now that you have pointed out the racist angle, I also wonder why nobody batted an eye except for Gary and Scott. May be in the interest of PC, the title should have been changed to:

"Beware of Blanc Man Bearing Gifts". But then, you guys don't sound like PC nuts. Are you?

[HAL 9000 96]

Nahhh its only a little thing called history that gets in the way.

Only a very selective and distorted view of history.

Yeah no kidding. Its always selective when the status quo is perpetuated by those that think they have everything to lose. The distortion I'm pretty sure can come when people are naive enough to believe that selective, yet dominated, view of reality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

not surprising, someone posts a thread called beware of white men bearing gifts and no one bats an eye.

swap white with any other ethnicity and there woulda been a chit storm.

When I posted that piece, I was thinking totally in the context of conservatives vs Dem candidates.

Hmmmm, now that you have pointed out the racist angle, I also wonder why nobody batted an eye except for Gary and Scott. May be in the interest of PC, the title should have been changed to:

"Beware of Blanc Man Bearing Gifts". But then, you guys don't sound like PC nuts. Are you?

I'm not sure I understand what's particularly racist about it - the blog is only four (short) paragraphs and the only mention of race in it is a play on a pretty well known phrase (about Greeks) in the title, and a reference to the Republican base (whose major support demographic IS is predominantly white). That being said - Race isn't even the focus of what he's talking about.

Are people really that sensitive?

Edited March 17, 2008 by Number 6

[dalegg 143]

] With their lipless smiles and lidless eyes, conservative connivers don't even bother to disguise their duplicity, so proud and gleeful are they of their little tricks. And why shouldn't they be, when so many liberal bloggers and pundits are ready to fall for them?

Well, duh. Did the guy really think the Republicans would actually support Obama in the end? Divide and conquer! There's nothing wrong with it. This is why they don't bother disguising it.

By the way, Democrats were rooting for McCain over the more conservative Republican candidates- and he won. That wasn't so subtle either.

Edited March 17, 2008 by dalegg

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By the way, Democrats were rooting for McCain over the more conservative Republican candidates- and he won. That wasn't so subtle either.

True enough.