|
January 10, 2008
Fueling Obamamania with Obamaphobia?
(A modest proposal...) I've been a bit upset by some of the vituperative attacks on Obama coming from the right, because they tend to cloud intelligent discussion of the man's many serious shortcomings. Worst of all, to the extent that they become full-blown irrational Obamaphobia -- this email I received earlier today being a perfect example -- they invite a countercharge of racism. While it is not racist to make the false claim that Obama is a covert Muslim agent or the (IMO) dubious claim that he does things like work with secret Kenyan "Muslim" relatives to establish Sharia law, I can understand why such attacks would encourage people who like to level false charges of racism. After all, if John Edwards were threatening to upset Hillary's lead in the same way, it's highly doubtful he would be subjected to these kinds of accusations, and the fact that Obama is black makes it all too easy to label all attacks on him as racist. What I'm so far seeing in this election is a lot of irrational behavior by a lot of people (myself included). Earlier Glenn Reynolds linked a very cogent analysis by Dr. Sanity: The left and the Democrats are now equally astounded to discover that the Clintons are the Clintons! And that they would use the usual Clinton tactics against them!I agree with that analysis of the Clintons and their (erstwhile) supporters, and I also agree that Obama is little more than a socialist hack. (If a very likeable, even lovable one.) But in the interests of my modest proposal, let me go further and admit that I am an anti-Hillary hack! Yes, I am an ABC (Anyone But Clinton) man all the way. I don't want to get into the details of why I don't want them back in the White House, as it would involve several lengthy essays, but suffice it to say that regardless of what I think about anyone's politics, if that person has a viable shot at stopping the Clintons, then that person represents hope. Thus, Obama becomes the Great Black Hope, while Edwards (were he in a similar position) would be the Great White Hope. Looking at the backlash angle from a sexist standpoint, either Obama or Edwards could be called the Great Male Hope. The San Francisco Chronicle is very sensitive to issues involving sexism, and one recent political analysis there concluded that Hillary's abrupt last minute turnaround was in fact a backlash by women voters against male sexism: Garry South, a California Democratic political consultant, said that women - who proved crucial to Clinton's big win in New Hampshire - might simply have said "enough is enough" as they watched a parade of cable TV pundits, mostly male, all but pronounce Clinton's White House bid over in the final 48 hours of the campaign.The whole thing is an interesting read, whether you agree or not. The point here is that backlash has become an important standard operating principle of American politics. Hillary played the female version like the virtuoso that she is. So, in this context, I feel obligated to engage in some darkly counterintuitive backlash strategizing. I'm wondering if the best way to counter Hillary would be massive, paranoid Obama-bashing. Manufacture as much Obamaphobia as possible in order to create sympathy for him and guarantee cries of racism by leftie bloggers. Simultaneously, Hillary should be constantly portrayed as the best of the Democratic alternatives. That this argument might even be true makes it all the more persuasive. There is nothing wrong with using the truth as an argument --even if the goal is duplicitous or demagogic. With any luck, right wing attacks on Obama coupled with grudging praise for Hillary will both help Obama and hurt Hillary. So why don't I just shut up and put my money where my mouth is, then? Why am I not bashing Obama and praising Hillary? Because this is just theory, that's why. Personally, I have a problem with floating dubious information even for a good cause. (The caveat is that I freely admit that such squeamishness is a good way to lose in politics.) MORE: No doubt striking back at the Clinton machine for his defeat, John Kerry is endorsing Obama! I'm sure there are plenty of principles involved there. Political principles, that is.... MORE: Speaking of Obama's shortcomings, Glenn Reynolds links a report on the Rezko affair, as well as this criticism of Obama by Andrew Cuomo, which, according to the prevailing double standard, would have been racist had come from a Republican. As Glenn notes regarding the Kerry endorsement, "those Clintons are subtle . . . ." (Hey, Rove still hasn't paid me, so this is my payback.) MORE: Here's Dick Morris: ...the theme of Hillary's attack will be that Obama cannot win, that he's not "electable."Yes, but will Glenn Greenwald accuse her of racism for it? Or will he just accuse Glenn Reynolds of racism for noticing irony? posted by Eric on 01.10.08 at 11:44 AM |
|
February 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"How are we going to manage to lose this time?"
Extreme common sense? The price is nuts Guilty Until Proven Innocent CALL THE ACLU! We Have Beaches Details which give me a splitting hair ache Once a RINO, always a RINO Coulter endorses Hillary They Elected To Receive
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The Huckster's campaign seems to be driven a lot by backlash.
I think it is standard in politics. Few vote for a candidate. Many vote against one.
Me? I'm voting against Ron Paul. That is if the guy I'm for - Fred - doesn't make it.