Why?  Because skinny really means black.  In fact, the author, Timothy Noah, goes on to add that “any discussion of Obama’s physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that’s most on their minds.”  I’m not sure who authorized Noah to speak for all white people, but I guess now we know which of Obama’s physical characteristics is most on his mind.

I wonder how long it will be before you’re not even allowed to think about Obama.  Just mindlessly go in and make your mark for Barack as though you’re in a hypnotic trance.

I’m an idealist.  I have long believed that racist thoughts in America are on the outs - a relic of the past.  But this story on NPR makes me wonder.

It’s about a black congressman who serves a mostly white district.  People of my generation wouldn’t think a bit about this, but others haven’t subscribed to the notion that we should be judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.  Clergymen in his district have criticized him in the past because they didn’t think a black person should be representing a majority white district.  I can’t fathom that some religious men and women in America still harbor such views in this modern era.

What was really shocking is what one of his constituents said - on national radio.  A man unashamedly said that he would vote for the challenger, who is white, because he thought that she could do more for him than a black man.  I’m a bit shocked that the station would publicly air his comments.

You really have to listen to the story for yourself to get the full effect.

The following post reminded me of this clip from Blazing Saddles:

Great movie.

From the New York Times:

We know that operatives in modern-day presidential campaigns are supposed to say things that everyone knows are ridiculous - and to do it with a straight face.

Still, there was something surreal, and offensive, about today’s soundbite from the campaign of Senator John McCain.

The presumptive Republican nominee has embarked on a bare-knuckled barrage of negative advertising aimed at belittling Mr. Obama. The most recent ad compares the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton - suggesting to voters that he’s nothing more than a bubble-headed, publicity-seeking celebrity.

The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives, some of whom work for Mr. McCain now, ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.

I’ve dealt with the ridiculous dust up over the Harold Ford ad before.  This preemptive shout of racism is a bit curious, though.  The Times is staking out the claim that including young, white women in an ad with a black man, in this case Barack Obama (a half black man who identifies as black), is racist.  This is despite the claims that Obama has strong support from young, white people (presumably including women).

What I would like to see the McCain campaign do (and they will not do it) is to produce an Obama ad showing nothing but black people with Obama.  Oh, just imagine the shouts of racism then.  The Times would most certainly denounce the ad by stating that the evil Republicans are trying to trick voters into thinking that Obama is going to favor blacks or create an all black government.  It would just be fun to expose each and every tactic that the erudite liberals beliefe is racist.  I bet in the end you would find that any ad beyond a blank screen would be deemed racist.  Of course, aren’t blank TV screens black…

So you can’t put young, white females in ads with Obama - it would be racist.  I’m quite sure that you couldn’t put blacks in an ad with Obama - it would be racist.  Japanese folks can’t put a monkey in a spoof political ad for a cell phone - it would be racist.

Geez, the list of things you can’t do or say when it comes to the Holy One is getting longer by the minute.

This is just getting silly.  Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina representative and House Majority Whip, said the following:

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being.”

That’s right, global warming is now racist.

From across the pond:

Toddlers who say “yuck” when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says.

The London-based National Children’s Bureau released a 366-page guide counseling adults on recognizing racist behavior in young children, The Telegraph reported Monday.

The guide, titled Young Children and Racial Justice, warns adults that babies must also be included in the effort to eliminate racism because they have the ability to “recognize different people in their lives.”

The bureau says to be aware of children who “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuck’.”

Words cannot describe how stupid this is.  I’m just glad my tax dollars aren’t supporting such foolishness.

The Huntsville Times recently ran this political cartoon by Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Pat Oliphant that shows Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama lecturing a black youth.

Naturally, since the cartoon included a black person coupled with sound advice, some have shouted racism.  The Times published a letter to the editor from Dawn M. Suiter of Madison making such a claim.  You can read another here on a site called “Halfrican Revolution.”

Such claims are amusing and ridiculous for numerous reasons.  Most notably, back in February Oliphant said that of all the presidential candidates he tended “toward Obama.”  If Oliphant is a “vile racist” I find it hard to beleive that he would “tend toward” a half black candidate while there were still plenty of lily white options to choose from.  I think it is safe to say that at least 99% of racists don’t want a member of the opposite race to be president.  We’ll get back to this topic later.

John Ehinger, the Times Editorial Page Editor, wrote one of his detailed position descriptions that he is known to do when controversy arises.  Per his style, he carefully examined the issue.  In the end he came up with the right answer:

So the obvious question: Would we use the cartoon if we had it to do over? I think we would. We can’t fall into the trap of refusing to publish anything that someone, somewhere might object to.

Kudos to the Huntsville Times for sticking to its guns in the face of unjustified shouts of racism.

Ehinger included thoughts from Madison County Commissioner Bob Harrison:

Harrison himself said he agreed with the underlying message - that people, including young black men, ought to behave in a more responsible manner - but he was concerned that the message may have gotten lost in racist stereotypes. The young black man, he noted, was depicted with oversized lips. (I note, too, that the character speaks in slang.)

Harrison is right that the underlying message is important, but I don’t believe that it would have been possible for Oliphant to get that message across without using stereotypes.  In fact, I think that the intent of the cartoon was for Obama to be speaking to a stereotype.

What I found to be a bit ironic is that in the very same Sunday edition of the paper the Times ran this story about Obama’s attempts to reach out to people of faith.  He spoke to the African Methodist Episcopal Church, “one of the nation’s largest and most politically active black denominations.”

[Obama] preached individual responsibility, saying he knew he risked criticism for “blaming the victim” by talking about the need for parents to help children with homework and turn off the television to pass on a healthy self-image to daughters, and teach boys both to respect women and “realize that responsibility does not end at conception.”

“… responsibility does not end at conception.”  That is practically what the Oliphant created Obama character said in the cartoon.  Obama must be a racist!

Could Oliphant have gotten his point across without using certain stereotypes?  I don’t think so.  It seems that the message Oliphant was trying to convey was not that all black youths are fathering children indiscriminately or don’t vote.  If that were his point he would have drawn a very generic character with a dark hue.  That would actually be a racist message because it would indicate that the primary reason the youth are behaving irresponsibly is because they are black, which is not the case.  His point, I believe, was that the youths who subscribe to “thug culture” (for lack of a better term) are engaging in irresponsible behavior, are quick to call blacks who appear mainstream or are critical of them “white” in a derogatory manner, and are not exactly known as a swing voting bloc.  He is merely identifying a subset of our culture and that identification required the use traits like large shoes and the backwards cap.

Similar observations about “thug” or “hip hop” culture have been made by numerous blacks over the years including Bill Cosby, as Ehinger pointed out, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Is it only racist for a white person (I assume Oliphant is white, else he wouldn’t face the cries of racism) to point out traits that are readily obvious about this group?

Moreover, Oliphant is a political cartoonist.  They have to convey a multi-faceted message in a small space with a sketch and a few words.  That medium requires use of stereotypes of all kinds, which carry with them lots of embedded meaning, in order to lay the groundwork for the reader to digest the cartoon’s message.  It certainly isn’t limited to racial stereotypes.  A cartoon of a golfer might show a person with horrific plaid pants and a funny hat.  (Ok, so that is my stereotype of golfers.)  Plus, these cartoonists have to be edgy in order to maintain their relevance.

Again, congratulations to the Huntsville Times for not relenting to the predictable, knee jerk cries of racism.

Yesterday Barack Obama’s former preacher made some additional comments that are not at all helpful to the Democrat’s presumptive presidential nominee.

For starters he tried to give context to his “chickens coming home to roost” statement.

“Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic, divisive principles,” he said.

With the original quote one could at least argue that he was making a nuanced point that I myself have made before.  Foreign policy does not follow Newton’s 3rd law.  Every action does not have an equal and opposite reaction.  Sometimes actions have disproportionate and/or unexpected reactions.  The U.S. could engage in what we perceive as a completely altruistic endeavor in a foreign land and some vanishingly small minority of people will view our actions through a different prism and respond in an unpredictable manner.  One could have suggested this is the point Wright originally tried to make, although I think it was plain that he was not.

Now, however, there is no ambiguity to Wright’s mental process; there is no nuance.  Wright flatly called us terrorists.  And I don’t think he was just talking about William Ayers.

Wright also implied that he will actively attempt to influence Obama’s policy decisions, saying that he is going to be “coming after” Obama because he will “be representing a government whose policies grind under people.”  This is very troubling given Wright’s numerous statements, world view, and noted relationship with Obama.  How compliant will Obama be?

Rev. Wright is trying to inject race into the situation (I know you’re surprised) saying, “It is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright—it’s an attack on the black church.”  Hogwash.  Wright toils under the archaic notion that men are judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.  He must have missed out on the last few decades of progress.

The sheer audacity of Wright’s statements - especially given the firestorm of criticism they bring Obama - is shocking.  Is he trying to harm Obama?  If he truly wanted his friend to become president surely he would just shut up.  He could lie in wait and then assail his friend with requests after he gets elected.  It is enough to make me think Rob is on to something when he ponders whether Wright is trying to keep Barack from the reaching the Oval Office.  It would certainly give him and the other race hustlers of a bygone era more fuel for the fire that they enjoy perpetually stoking.

Regardless of Wright’s intent, his repeated comments, among many other things, keep making Obama look more like a sitting duck.  He’s still in the relatively friendly environ of a Democrat primary.  The intensity of the general election will make this period seem like a daydream.  Personally I hope Rev. Wright keeps on talking.

The story of Barack Obama’s inflammatory preacher, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, and, uhhh, colorful church have been making the rounds in recent months.  Until now they have received scant attention from the mainstream news media.  But now there’s video!

I can honestly say that is the first time I’ve ever seen or heard of a preacher taking the Lord’s name in vain in the pulpit.

Here is the description of Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, from it’s own website:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Insert the word “white” everywhere you see “black” in that description and imagine how the media would react if a Republican went to the church.

Obama has written a column condemning “the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.”  Personally, I think the condemnation comes far too late to have any meaning.

The fact that he attended - and continues to attend - this church for twenty years shows that Obama does not really repudiate the words we hear coming from Dr. Wright’s mouth.  One would have to believe that the sermons in the video are isolated incidents.  This is highly unlikely based on the reactions of those in the audience.  They weren’t reacting with shock when this preacher said things that were completely uncharacteristic.  They clearly were not surprised and were actually enthusiastically supportive.  Even if Obama just happened to never hear one of those sermons in person surely one of his fellow church goers would approach him and say, “Gosh Barack, you should have heard the crazy things Wright preached about.”  Quite simply, Obama cannot credibly proclaim ignorance of the content and themes of his preachers sermons.

I think Obama’s long term membership in the church, all the while led by Dr. Wright, undermines his claim that he has good judgment.  Wright’s sermons - at least the portions contained in the videos are quite odious.  The church’s race based values are no less detestable.  Why would Obama stay in the church so long?  Why would he let Wright preside over his wedding?

Let me expand by offering a personal anecdote.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist church.  After my wife and I got married we discussed where we wanted to worship and we mutually decided to join a different denomination.  We both disagreed with the church’s stated views on women.  We believe that women are just as capable of delivering a sermon as men.  More so, neither of us agree that “a wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.”  Now those are just personal belief differences we have with the official Baptist message.  Those positions taking by the Baptists are FAR less offensive than those taken by Obama’s church.  Just the same, we chose to join a denomination more compatible with our views.  Why couldn’t Obama have done the same?  The church you belong to says a lot about what you believe.  It doesn’t mean you believe everything the church leadership does, but in Obama’s case you have to be skeptical because he would have to disavow a considerable amount of the church’s official beliefs to fall below a reasonable threshold.

I think Obama has set himself up for some VERY effective attack ads in the future.  He said:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

I’m just guessing, but I think we’re going to hear about quite a few additional controversial sermons and comments.  Unless Obama was a very infrequent church goer I think it is highly likely that someone will recall seeing him at specific sermons.  Then he’ll have some ’splaining to do.

At first I was a bit curious about why McCain’s campaign would be putting forth effort to get this story in the media at this time, but I think it is a fantastic strategic move.  This story could have the strength to knee cap Obama.  So why do it now?  Because if McCain can tip the balance in the Democrat race in favor of Clinton he can effectively fracture the party, weakening it for the general election.  At this point Obama’s lead among pledged delegates is quite solid and he is even gaining ground among the super delegates.  Clinton will not be able to win without blood being spilled and feelings hurt.  Will the black vote, which Democrats have long taken for granted and are voting for Obama in force, be disenfranchised by the perception that Clinton stole the nomination from Obama?  What about all those young, eager voters who’ve brought the well documented energy to the Democrat primaries?  Will their zeal be tempered?  Will they even bother campaigning and voting for Clinton?  Will the Democrat donors “spend out” trying to shepherd their preferred candidate through the primary?  Those are all good questions with unpleasant answers for the Democrats.  Prolonging the Democrat race and weakening Obama now only helps McCain.

Obama might make it through the primary.  I still think the party will move surreptitiously to stymie Clinton due to the harm her victory might cause them.  One thing is for sure: this isn’t the last we’ve heard of Dr. Jeremiah Wright.

The race to be the Democrat’s nominee for president remains fascinating.  Barack Obama trounced both Clinton and Edwards in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, winning a majority of the votes.  Exit polls indicated that the racial politics played by the Clinton camp, led by the former president, soured voters on Clinton.  Turnout of black voters was high and Obama won four out of every five of their votes.  After the primary Bubba compared Obama’s victory to that of Jesse Jackson – an obvious attempt to portray Obama as simply a black candidate, a token, who was able to woo black voters.

The Clinton strategy appears to be to “blacken” Obama and instigate white black lash against him.  The Clintons surveyed the broad primary landscape on the horizon and made a strategic, rather than tactical, decision to drive black voters towards Obama while peeling off enough white voters to make it look like a vote along racial lines.  Losing South Carolina was not a setback for them, but was the actual plan.  Upcoming primaries in delegate heavy states will have much smaller black populations and the Clintons hope to win the white voters over by having already pigeonholed Obama as a black candidate for black voters.

The strategy may prove to be effective, but at a high cost for the party and country.  Obama has been a dynamic campaigner, stimulating high voter turnout and even securing the notoriously fickle youth vote.  His ascendancy and that of the party are likely intertwined.  For the Clintons to submarine his candidacy by appealing to bigotry could cause long term harm to the party by alienating young, excited voters – many of whom are in their politically formative years.

Moreover, the country appears to be ready to install a man who happens to be black into the White House.  Obama won the Iowa caucuses where 95% of the population is white.  He has shown strong support among whites in other contests.  South Carolina marked the first primary in a state with a large black population.  The Clinton’s campaign strategy could instead result in a black man being denied entry into the White House for no reason other than his skin.

The Clinton’s decision to use race against Obama also underscores my impression of how the Democrats really view their minority base.  Democrats have long taken a condescending, paternalistic approach to blacks.  They piously create affirmative action and other race based preference programs which they sell as being supportive of blacks, but are in fact a subtle form of discrimination that say, “We don’t think you can do it on your own, so we’ll give you a boost.”  There is an implicit belief in Democrats of the Clinton’s ilk that blacks wouldn’t – couldn’t – achieve success without their help.  And now that Hillary, the early presumptive nominee, is facing the stark possibility that an upstart black man could derail her ambition she is striking back.  It is analogous to a plantation owner normally who treats his bondsmen with relative kindness and respect reasserting his authority in a most unpleasant manner when one of the slaves attempts to leave the fields.  Will this treatment of a black man weaken support among a group of people that the Democrats have long taken for granted?

The whole spectacle does little for how I think of the Clintons.  They are a conniving, power driven clan who will stoop to any level and make any lie to attain their goals.  Our country would be well served to see both Hillary and Bill dispatched.

Obama, on the other hand, has been a breath of fresh air in the political scene.  I remain uncompelled by his policies, but I think he may have the ability to create a new breed of voters – call them Obama Republicans (like the Regean Democrats) – who are drawn to a more civil discourse and optimistic view of our union.

A black school teacher in Baltimore was attacked on a city bus by nine white teenagers. 

As Sarah Kreager, 26, tried to sit down on a Baltimore City bus Tuesday, police say, a middle-schooler told her she couldn’t. When she attempted to take another seat, a middle-schooler wouldn’t let her. Finally, according to police, Kreager just sat down.

She was “immediately attacked” by nine students — three females and six males — from Robert Poole Middle School. They punched and kicked her at 2:59 p.m. at the intersection of 33rd Street and Chestnut Avenue, according to Maryland Transit Administration police.

Kreager was dragged off the bus and her boyfriend, Troy Ennis, attempted to get her back on, police said.

She sustained “serious injuries” and had to be transported to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, according to a police report.

Kreager suffered two broken bones in her left eye socket, police said.

“She had eye muscles that were damaged,” a police report states. “She had deep lacerations on the top of her head and another above her neck.”

Two seats and the bus’ rear glass were destroyed during the attack, police said.

The article includes a picture of Ms. Kreager’s battered face.  We’ve come a long way from the days of Rosa Parks, but its hard to fathom why a group of people would attack a woman for sitting in the wrong seat on a bus. 

Oops, did I say the teacher was black and the kids were white?  Strike that, reverse it.  I wonder if the good reverend will still speak out?