What’s the country coming to when an honest man can’t unfairly attack another honest man, personally, without that other man saying the unfair attack is against his whole race?

I don’t mean to caricature your argument but it could be read as saying something like this:

There is a kind of ridicule we could throw at person X (e.g., Edwards) but we are throwing ridicule at person Y (Obama). The ridicule we throw at person Y is qualitatively similar to the ridicule we throw at people when we are being racist against them. But it is ridicule and we would throw ridicule at person X. So it’s OK.

I’m pretty sure that’s not exactly what you are saying. But it bears a family resemblance to a common thing that white people tend to say, which is ‘we make fun of everyone so our racist fun of you is not as egregious as it would be otherwise.’

Admittedly, the slurs really stick in politics. For example, the Gore slurs really stuck. So the mud that is non-racist is damaging, perhaps even as damaging. To the candidate. However, it is not the same kind of mud because racist mud sticks all over the place. This is what is particularly sickening about racist mud. I mean, you aren’t just dipping your fingers into the pot of Nixon memes (BRILLIANT ones, if the story is true…although Buchanan tries to take the credit). You are dipping your finger into the pot of 100 years of terror and lynching. That’s a bit different, for my money.

Simply one of the Republicans’ more standard plays: turn your opponent’s assets into liabilities. Obama’s celebrity becomes airhead celebrity. An effective ploy, certainly when compared to the standard Dem play of being as much like the Republicans as possible, thereby cementing the notion that their traits – militarism, (faux) religiosity, etc – are indeed valuable assets, and then wonder why the voters choose the real thing over the cardboard cut-out.

The reaction from the netroots is an early signal of what form the “it’s someone else’s fault we lost” excuse will be this time around*. 2000 was blame Nader, 2004 was swiftboating, this time around the failure to energise sufficient voters to send another Dem “Centrist” into the White House* will be purely – purely! – because Americans are such racists, don’t you know.

Even from the other side of the globe this election is going to be super tiresome to watch.

*in the extraordinarily unlikely event Obama loses.

Perhaps I missed something, but I thought Obama’s specific response to the Spears/Hilton ad was to say, in effect: “Don’t the Republicans have anything more substantive to talk about?” — which is not an angry response. Obama then said on a separate occasion something like “McCain will try to tell you I don’t look like the other presidents on the currency,” which is what prompted the McCain camp’s charge of playing the race card. What you describe as race card rope-a-dope relates, I think, to this exchange, not directly to the Spears/Hilton ad, though it’s true that the story as reported tended to jumble everything together. In any case I agree with you that sly negative ads and race card charges are not going to work.

The fact that Paris and Britney are not regarded as paragons of virtue is irrelevant. In the infamous “Harold, call me” ad that is given credit for Harold Ford’s loss in 2006, the blonde was showing nothing but skin. The message is still “black boys rape our young girls” even if Violet goes willingly.

Who calls a 46-year old man ‘young’?

At least over here, there’s a certain type of pensioner who will call anybody with youthful looks – say Hugh Grant or David Bowie even – “young man”, no matter what their age. You can meet them at supermarkets and coffee shops during off-peak hours (the pensioners, not Bowie and Grant). I agree, though, that it’s a bit inappropriate for a presidential candidate. What I found oddly charming was when the ladies at the local council called me “love”.

Since everyone else seems to be ignoring the most important paragraph in this entry … I agree about the characterization of Johann Krauss in Hellboy II being interesting given the way Abe was introduced in the first movie. In fact, I was surprised that he was selected from the books for Golden Army as opposed to, say, Kate Corrigan or Roger (though I understand why both were likely passed over; introducing Kate could complicate the Liz-Hellboy relationship that has been created for the films, and Roger, well, I’m not sure the world is ready for a live-action Roger. Daimo could have been chosen since del Toro doesn’t seem to have much regard for BPRD/Hellboy continuity, but I’m not sure what he would add to the films). I never quite got used to the Victorian diving suit they put Johann in, but I did warm to the variation on the character. I think that the ending, with the whole team essentially quitting, is indicative of the manner in which the movies have been made, which is to amp up aspects of the comics, in this case, taking Hellboy leaving the BPRD and generalizing the act to the entire core group of characters (though, as you point out, with far less clear cause than Hellboy’s exit at the end of Conquerer Worm). Anyhow, if you click through to my blog, you can read a lot more about what I think about the differences between the movies and the books.

John, I think you are talking about what Kaus called the ‘racial bonus’ to otherwise permissible political criticisms in certain circumstances. It’s a very tricky issue.

In other Obama news, did you see the recent ‘It’s time for some campaigning’ video from jibjab? Where Obama prances through the forest with bunnies, racoons, and unicorns? It also has a light-weight, young man, not-ready, even clue-less flavour. Of course it helps that it’s rather funny, and that it’s bundled with uninhibited criticism of McCain (though Hillary gets off easily). But watching it made me think that if McCain had produced such a cartoon as an ad, it would have been both ‘sufficiently fair’, hit all the points that the celebrity ad goes for, and would have been very difficult to criticise as racist.

“there’s no way for old white men to call a professionally accomplished, intelligent, articulate, younger – but not actually young – black man ‘boy’, in effect, without it being heard as racist”

There, fixed that for you.

I think a better response than:
“McCain will try to tell you I don’t look like the other presidents on the currency”

would be

“McCain will try to tell you I don’t look like the other presidents on the currency, but wait and see what I look like after 8 years on the job.

Very clever, as it not only would have defused the race issue but would have turned the age issue against McCane.

We keep talking about these ads (and candidate responses to ads) like we know which ones are racist or at least racially overcoded.

And that’s wonderful, but doesn’t matter much. What will matter is what they think in the real world, not at CT.

And there’s some evidence what people think — Here’s the headline at Rasmussen: “Only 22% Say McCain Ad Racist, But Over Half (53%) See Obama Dollar-bill Comment That Way.”

I hope Obama’s taking this as an indication he should change his response pattern.

“I would pay good money to watch a pensioner call David Bowie a ‘young man’ in a supermarket during an off-peak hour. That would make my week.”

You can watch Kenny Everett pretending to be a pensioner doing that here.

Of course, it could be argued that Bowie actually was fairly young back then.

And there’s some evidence what people think—Here’s the headline at Rasmussen: “Only 22% Say McCain Ad Racist, But Over Half (53%) See Obama Dollar-bill Comment That Way.”

That’s because the lying MSM have not told them about the referent of that dollar-bill comment”, this McCain campaign ad from June.

what they think in the real world, not at CT.
I love comments like this. Firstly because the real world must be a very small place: it excludes every specific gathering of people everywhere. Secondly because what it really says is “you people are freaks. Everyone else is normal, and they think one way, but you people don’t get it, and you don’t count,” while the person talking casts themselves in the role of translator between the freaks and the real. Paging Ben Anderson, I think.

Am I the only one who thinks Obama will win in part because the 2008 election is shaping up in similar ways to the 1996 election between the more youthful, articulate, and charismatic Democratic running against an old war veteran Republican who spent decades in the US Senate?

Like all politicians who have been around a long time, Obama may have a field day looking into McCain’s voting record.

http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-john-mccain-new-bob-dole.html

Slocum, the GOP has the most unpopular President ever, or, at least, matching Nixon’s level. The GOP candidate is a poor campaigner. There’s an unpopular war. A lousy economy and exceptionally high gas prices. Democrats are winning just about every other electoral position out there. Yes, if the Democratic candidate for President doesn’t win, it’s a) his lousy campaign, and b) racism.

But really, your remark comes from a long tradition of denial. Who’d think that the Southern Strategy would work? But of course it works and it keeps working. Because of racism.

More denial. Who would think that racism was an important factor in American life?

I’m tired of this whole discussion, from John’s well-meaning but vacuous start to its predictable end. If people can’t see the awful, never-to-be-fixed mess that the American dream has become, let them not see. Here’s some poetry to express what I think:

Two roads have diverged, and at last we can see
That Langston’s America never will be
Our song of ourselves is a jingle of lies
And hope is a thing that will peck out your eyes

I give John and the commenters credit for the creativity of their narrative, but there are a couple of things that I’m having trouble with:

1) A few months ago, when virtually the only thing that anybody knew about Barack Obama was that he’s black, his poll numbers were positively stratospheric. Now they’ve come down to earth. Is it being claimed that racist Americans had to be reminded that Obama’s black by subtly coded McCain ads, before recoiling in revulsion?

2) Obama’s rise and fall in the national polls mirrors the pattern of the Democratic candidacy race–early on, as a virtual unknown, he looked ready to sweep, but concerns about his inexperience and perceived arrogance brought his poll numbers down to rough parity with his opponent. Does that mean that even Democratic primary voters are racist, that Hillary Clinton’s attacks were in fact coded appeals to that racism, and that racist Democrats needed those reminders to be convinced not to vote for a black man?

Not that I think race isn’t an issue. Race is plainly the major reason Obama can even be painted as a lightweight, as someone whose only plus is their bare celebrity and charisma, as someone who isn’t smart enough not to become a demagogue.

John, I think you’re on to something. But at the end of the day, I think making a criticism of your black opponent that infantalizes him, knowing that there’s a centuries-long history of racists doing exactly this, and being aware that this criticism is going to therefore particularly resonate with the racist tendencies in your audience, then I’m going to be comfortable in calling you a racist shitbag, period, regardless of whether your behavior would be different if Edwards had won the primary. That’s what racism is. It’s not the only thing racism is, but it counts.

Anyone for rehabilitating “mulatto”? Kinda sounds like a nice exotic coffee… OTOH, that wouldn’t play well with those who think plain ol’ latte is unconstitutional….

“Only 22% Say McCain Ad Racist, But Over Half (53%) See Obama Dollar-bill Comment That Way.”

Yeah, & how do you explain the fact that 44% of black people thought Obama’s response was racist? If McCain continues this way, by the time the election rolls around, there will be a national consensus that if racism exists in America, it’s black people’s fault.

Barack Obama is biracial, which in the racially coded U.S. context makes him black, especially to older white folks.

I still think that he ought to run an ad that reminds everybody that the main purpose of Republican tax policy is to provide benefits to Paris Hilton (she won’t have pay inheritance tax) and Britney Spears (much of her income, unless she’s stupider than I take her for, is now investment income). Oh, and if he could find the video of the two of them praising George Bush, as each has done in the past, that would be cool.

Paris Hilton’s mom is really pissed. The family’s Republican to the core (inherited wealth, don’t you know) and their daughter’s being slagged using their campaign contributions. Surely the Dems can and should use that.

Appros of racial identity and mixed-races, someone years ago made the point on a television special that the difference between the US and Brazil was that in the US, anybody who is not seen as purely “white” is considered “black”; in Brazil anyone not perceived as totally “black” is considered “white.” In fact the Brazilian social viewpoint is seen as such a threat by the NAACP (because viewing mixed race people as something other than black would dilute blacks’ political clout) that it has a team of lawyers down in Brazil even now trying thru the courts to establish a legal basis for legally labeling mix-raced people as “black” for purposes of preferred univ. admissions, etc. (was a PBS special on the subject not to long ago.) Bottom line, as more and more progeny of multi-racial marriages occur, (see Tiger Woods)the pressure for a category other than the black-white-Latina schema grows apace. (Witness the NAACP fierce opposition to mixed-race categories on US Census forms.) The NAACP fears that as more and more Brazilians immigrate to the US (as is the case here in New Orleans, which has a vibrant and growing Brazilian community) their “take” on race will infect the mainstream–hence their Brazilian legal court-challenge project to “raise” the “conscious” of Brazilians. Or rather, to disabuse them of their “false consciousness.” This is no small savage irony, sitting here in Louisiana, to see the NAACP now
CHAMPIONING the “one drop” rule they historically fought so hard against, the culmination of which was a Supreme Court case brought and won by a female Creole right here in Louisiana.

Regardless of the intent of the ad, or even how various people interpret it, Obama’s biggest problem is that he is that he is answering it in a way that actually reinforces the thrust of the ad, that is that Obama is a lightweight, a celebrity girly-man, someone who daren’t express the righteous anger that McCain or any winger would if a similar ad was made about them. In fact, McCain gets a two-fer by being able to be righteously angry about the ad being called racist (though Obama himself never levels the charge) and as well humorously belittling Obama for being thin skinned and always trying to inject race into the debate. If Edwards had been the object of such an ad how long do you think it would have taken Elizabeth to cry foul? But, of course, if Michele says anything, its that hypersensitive black woman again. Since Obama has built his career by not being the ‘angry back man’ I suppose it is to much to ask him to now change his stripes. He is using the same tactic he used against Hillary, albeit more overtly, and that is mildly condescending mockery. Even his surrogate, Daschle and Kerry, seem unable to muster real outrage.
Why does all this work for McCain? Because he is the original ‘Angry Old Man’ and the mood of the public is not comedic, it’s angry. Angry at everybody in government, regardless of political stripe. When they fork over fifty bucks for a fill up they are angry, when they pay four dollars for a loaf of bread, ten dollars for a pound of salmon and five dollars for a pound of cheese they are angry. And if that wasn’t enough, either there rent is going up or their equity is going down while their wages are going nowhere. And when they watch Obama being whisked around the world to adoring crowds instead of being back here spending some time on isle 7, talking to someone trying to live on a budget, they are angry. And angry is what McCain and the winger do best.
Ironically, Obama has built his whole political career, maybe even his real personality, on not being the Angry Black Man. (Remember how he was so quick not only to dissociate himself from Rev. Wright’s words but, even more from Wright’s angry performance.) He wouldn’t be the dem nominee if he hadn’t assured a lot of powerful whites that he wasn’t the kind of guy who would guilt trip them by being righteously angry. Now he need anger, not about the ads but about the state of the country and the obvious failure of the political class to have prevented the situation or come up with real solutions. Mavericky and angry McCain can, on the other hand, portray himself as the real outsider and someone who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. And the polls show it is working. I don’t know where it is going to come from, but Obama better start changing his tune. He had better start sounding more like ludicrous lest he be taken as ridiculous.

The range of comments best summarized as “[Candidate] must say what I am saying” would be rendered “[C]:I”.

in Brazil anyone not perceived as totally “black” is considered “white.”
No, there’s a category of “brown.” There are plenty of white racists and black racists in Brazil, but the consensus position (at least in the media) is a lot more colourblind, or acknowledges that the mixtures are so varied and uncategorisable that there’s no point worrying about them: there’s no room for a “not one drop” doctrine because it would exclude practically everyone.

Jeez, this is funny. Any of the commenters above obsessing about the one-drop rule and whether Obama chose to be black would have no trouble immediately identifying someone who looked just like him as black if they, say, were walking through an area of town that they were worried about.

“…has worked both sides of the racial street when he thought it to his advantage…”

Oh, jeez.

Oh, hell. Let Paris have the last word on this.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-strikes-back-at-mccain/

d