An interesting phenomenon is happening as a result of BHO's ascension to the Democratic nomination: conservatives don't quite know what to say about him to help arrest his momentum in the electorate.
Some of the things that are emerging from Fox News are absolutely hilarious. First, there was the confusion about Michelle Obama giving her man dap before millions. That E.D. Hill of Fox actually pondered whether or not that hip hop/sports gesture of affection was "terrorist fist jab" had me howling out loud. Yet, I don't think she needed to lose her show. I'd much rather that she'd stayed on air for the receipt of proper ridicule from all corners of the media for a nice long time.
To add to the unnecessary drama that Fox News has brought upon itself, the organization decided to try its hand at a true ghetto-ism: referring to a potential First Lady as "Obama's baby mama." Does anyone think that it would have crossed the minds of any news producer to refer to Mrs. McCain in the same way? Now I am sure that some will point out that Michelle Obama has referred to her man as her "baby daddy" in public in the past, but my guess is that the audience would have been in on the joke, and the reference was in fact just that: a joke. I doubt that the Fox producer was going for the humor jugular when he/she put that moniker up.
So, I think we are in for a very interesting media ride as conservatives try to figure out ways to render the Obamas as alien from traditional American culture and values as they possibly can. Essentially, isn't the argument that they are black; therefore, they aren't really American. If conservatives keep up this potential line of argument, they will discover a new (to them) line right out of the handbook of most southern African American grandmothers: y'all about to get told.
3 comments:
Obama’s embrace of hip-hop values and his wife’s contempt for America will make it easy target him as an out of touch radical liberal elitist who will empower people like his spiritual mentor, Rev. Wright.
But here's a different line of attack for you:
Leaders take a stand, Obama took a pass. While in the Illinois legislature Obama voted “present” X number of times on tough issues.
February 13, 2007
The Ever-'Present' Obama
By Nathan Gonzales
Finally and officially, Barack Obama is running for president. His symbolic announcement, in the Land of Lincoln, called for a new era in politics. Obama downplayed his thin federal experience while championing his record on the state and local level, and he talked about the need to change Washington, set priorities, and "make hard choices."
"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions," Obama said in his announcement speech. But a closer look at the presidential candidate's record in the Illinois Legislature reveals something seemingly contradictory: a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices.
While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield - even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day - that raises questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.
We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.
For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.
In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.
In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."
And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.
If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.
Some of these bills may have been "bad. They may have included poison pills or been poorly written, making it impossible for Obama to support them. They may have even been unconstitutional. When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.
But even if that were the case, it doesn't explain his votes. The state legislator had an easy solution if the bills were unacceptable to him: he could have voted against them and explained his reasoning.
Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States.
While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."
Obama's "present" record could hurt him in two very different ways in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White House. On one hand, those votes could anger some Democrats, even liberals, because he did not take a strong enough stand on their issues. On the other hand, his votes could simply be portrayed by adversaries as a failure of leadership for not being willing to make a tough decision and stick by it.
Obama is one of the most dynamic and captivating figures in American politics at this time, and he has put together an excellent campaign team. He clearly is a factor in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.
But as Democrats - and Americans - are searching for their next leader, the Illinois senator's record, and not just his rhetoric, will be examined under a microscope. As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting "present" will not be an option. He will need to explain those "present" votes as a member of the Illinois Legislature if he hopes to become America's commander-in-chief.
Nathan L. Gonzales is political editor of The Rothenberg Political Report.
I don't recall hip hop values ever being equated with "liberal elitist" thought. And I think that it is outlandish to consider anyone who has criticisms for the United States (and black folks have a pretty solid history to consult to that can be a source of criticism, though there has always been love there as well) as having contempt for the country. Finally, isn't voting present a procedural move of the Illinois legislature to reflect concern about portions of the legislation with which a member may not agree, but that member agrees with the conceptual framework of said legislation?
Interesting that a man of such humble beginings is being labeled an elitist. Also, since when did bills prohibiting strip clubs, carrying concealed weapons become key issues?
Post a Comment