Obama the Terrorist: The Vote-Baiting Smear Begins
Barack the Blessed, the Good, the Handsome Obama? I mean to be neither cute nor jump on the Oprah endorsement bandwagon (she declared herself for Obama last week). I don't find Obama particularly interesting or imaginative, which should make him an ideal candidate for the presidency. But I doubt he'll get that far. It's all in the name.
The name as I wrote it above is a literal translation of "Barack Hussein Obama." Barack is a variant of the Arabic and African word baraka, the blessed one, or if you prefer, the Hebrew word for lightning (the Barak of Jewish tradition is a victor against the odds, which should come in handy for Obama). Hussein, a name of Arab, and in Jordan royal, origin, means "the good, the handsome one." The name couldn't be more presidential if you tried.
But to Obama's detractors, whose ranks grow in proportion with his popularity, the name "Hussein" is a gift, the bait that keeps snagging on just the right smears that, Obama's race being off limits, can always attach to his Arab-sounding past. Arabs (along with gays) are the last remaining groups Americans feel comfortable stereotyping and presuming guilty of whatever. It doesn't have to be terrorism. It doesn't have to be anything at all. It's guilt by ethnicity, a vague, unspoken coloring that just hangs there, like an unmovable obsidian cloud over an otherwise sunny stretch of Norman Rockwell canvas.
After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Anton Shammas, the Palestinian novelist, wrote in The New York Times of the immediate assumption that the bomb was set off by Arabs. It was, in fact, set off by heartland Americans, both of them Army veterans. "One can't help but think, though," Shammas wrote, "that all parties concerned would have been better off if it had been a Middle Eastern terrorist act. All the self-appointed experts on 'Islamic militants' would have recycled their arguments, reminding Americans that Muslims are the world's only fanatic extremists and their true post-cold war enemies."
These stereotypes presage Obama's downfall, should he manage to make it far in the Democratic nomination process. The country may be ready to elect a black man president. It's less likely to elect a man whose middle name is Hussein, whether or not the man has any connection to anything Arab or Islamic (Obama does not). This is where the slimier side of American presidential politics kicks in -- the side that gave us the Willie Horton ads of the first Bush presidency, the Swift boat ads of the second, and the "Southern Strategy" ads appealing to Southern whites going back to Richard Nixon. We're about to get the "Arab Strategy" ads, the kinds that hint, allude, suggest, but never say what lurks beneath the surface of so many wholesome suburban roofs: the fear that anything remotely Arab-sounding could be in charge.
The attacks on Obama began last January when Fox News unleashed its slander about him having supposedly attended a madrassa in Indonesia, "for a decade," in the words of the announcer (one of an endless stream of inaccuracies: Obama was in Indonesia between 1967 and 1971). Quick flash: I, too, attended a madrassa when I was growing up in Lebanon. The word means school. My madrassa certainly was a terror center, too, run by the most brutal brand of clerics known to man (Jesuits). Obama's Indonesian schooling included a Catholic school and a public school. Does that make him a suspect in cahoots with the Talibs of Pakistan? To the Fox tribunal, yes. Yet no sooner was the "rumor" (itself a word that confers a certain legitimacy on the matter; why "rumor" and not slander?) put to rest than it began rooting weeds through the Internet's loamy blogs, waiting for its next chance to snap up mainstream time.
Last week, it did, on the front page of The Washington Post, and with this headline: "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him." The slanders about Obama's past are not only offensive in and of themselves, but for what they say about the currency of ethnically dirtied suggestions. What if Obama was a Muslim? A recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 52 percent of voters who don't know a Muslim would be less likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, compared with 16 percent when it came to an evangelical. Why not? Prejudice, rank and raw.
Obama is no Muslim, he's no Arab, he's no "foreigner." His opponents, knowing there's a market for their bait, will ensure that he's perceived as all three.
Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@att.net or through his personal Web site at www.pierretristam.com.
© 2007 The Daytona Beach News-Journal
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
49 Comments so far
Show Allspeaking of political tests:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
here is how the US candidates for 2008 are ranked:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
here is the 2004 election candidates:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection
crazy stuff....
EAt worms! (they're a renewable resource)
Can't agree with max more. Edwards is my candidate.
I took the quiz and Edwards came out on top, followed closely by Kucinich and Dodd.
I've been thinking about Obama and Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee. Ford lost his Senatorial race 48-51 in the last election to some white guy. Obama has no chance in the deep South, period.
I've taken that test (and sent it to others), and depending on how you rank importance of various issues, you can change the results. Kucinich, Dodd, and Edwards rank highly for me, which is why I choose to support Edwards, who is the only viable candidate, in my humble opinion, to beat any of the current crop of Repugnican candidates. Edwards could even win states in the South in the general election. Could Hillary, Obama, or Kucinich? I doubt it, unless the Republican candidate is Osama Bin Laden (and even then, I'm not so sure :) )
max:
Take the test and see:
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
Kucinich and Obama are in the same boat, they are both unelectable in the general election, for different reasons, obviously. In a perfect world, Kucinich would be my candidate, but the world isn't perfect, which is why I support John Edwards, who has reasonable, even progressive, stands on the issues. He's not taking lobby money, so if you want change, start with a candidate not beholden to special interests *and* one who can beat any of the Republican candidates. In my opinion, Kucinich is the Nader of 2008, and a vote for him (in Iowa or NH) is a vote for Hillary. If Hillary is, god forbid, the Democratic candidate, I foresee the gnashing and wailing by the DNC, "How did we *think* she was electable?!"
Boy-howdy...! If one wants to find the true-believers and die-hard 'my vote counts' folks, look no-further than CD.
If whoever gifted-us with our current (and 'rather-obvious') MattDillon/PerryMason-combo [after our philandering & 'Rhodes-indoctrinated Scholar'] wants us to have Obama (or Hilly/Mitt/Rudy/Dennis), then we'll surely have he/she/it.
[Who was our last 'loose-cannon'...Teddy? (Not that he was hard to 'bring to heel'...)]
OK - if we're going to choose from among the Dem candidates who have a ghost of a chance of getting the nomination (sorry, Dennis, that lets you out, as it would Nader if he had chosen to run on the Dem ticket)and if we agree to make our most important criterion the likelihood of the candidate being swiftboated by "racist / Hillary hating" / homophobic" red state rednecks (that is, our choice should be the candidate least vulnerable to such bigoted attacks) then it seems we have to go for gorgeous John Edwards (though I frankly wanted to throw up before the end of the recent Charlie Rose interview with him ). The characteristics Edwards has going for him are (1)economic populism (2) wholesome Southern "family values" appeal (anti gay marriage) without Jimmy Carter' sanctimoniousness - is that a word? (3) he's the husband of Elizabeth Edwards, a truly brave, gutsy lady (Hillary Clinton with class).
P.S.
militantliberal "Obama didn't lose me because of his Arabic name. He lost me because he voted for the awful 2005 bankruptcy "reform" bill, which reduced the rights of consumer debtors to benefit needy, suffering credit card companies. His true skin color is neither brown nor black but money green. I'm not sure about Clinton's vote, but I'd wager she supported it too. Edwards is the only one of the leading 3 I can stomach."
Interesting that Edwards is the only one you can stomach if your basis is who voted on the bankruptcy "reform" bill. He voted for it as well. He "apologized" for it at a town hall last week.
DenverCurmudgeon December 4th, 2007 2:09 pm
"Jeffrey Toobin's new book: The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
384 pages
ISBN 0385516401"
Nice book jacket review but that doesn't answer the question. Exactly what evidence do you have that the next President will appoint three Supreme Court justices?
Lobo Gris
Hey fox,
Knock it off, will ya? You just BOWL me over with your enthusiasm and conviction! Jeezus... Died in the wool staunch Dim, eh? Ya think? The way you arrive at casting yer ballot fer the leader of the "free" world is just SO awe inspiring.
Gosh, I was wrong to invest all that stupid enthusiasm for candidates like Nader and Kucinich. I was laboring under the obvious misconception that I should vote for and support candidates who had proven track records and original ideas about how to govern in a truely democratic fashion.
I should be more pragmatic about things, like you. "Newness" really shoud be a deciding factor now that I think of it. I should realize I've been foolish all this time to confuse good telegenics with A TOTAL LACK OF EXPERIENCE AND CONVICTIONS.
Yeah. I'm with you. By process of elimination thanks to our TOTALLY IMPARTIAL MSM, it's gotta be Barack-O-Boy!
I can't wait to vote, AND REALLY FEEL LIKE I'M CHANGING THINGS!
I am a staunch Democrat living abroad for the past 4 years. It's a sad but true statement to have to make, but none of the current candidates get my enthusiastic support: my guy was and always will be Al Gore. He deserves it, not only because it was swiped from him in 2000 but because he is the only one who has the power of his convictions and has the first-hand experience of the Washington machine and all that that brings.
However, that said, I cannot get excited about any of the Dem. candidates. I wish I could. I've tried. And, I just got my NH primary ballot in the mail yesterday. I stare at it and stare at it and stare at it, and cannot bring myself to put an "X" next to any of the names.
I can eliminate Hillary and Edwards right off the bat. Richardson (nobody's mentioning him) was a possibility until I learned he supports the NRA. Kucinich, who does have a good idea for the single-payer medical system, just does not seem presidential enough for me (that sounds shallow, but so be it). Gravel/Biden/Dodd all good men but I don't think my vote for them would mean anything. So I'm left with Obama.
I like Obama's excitement and "newness", but those are also his downfall, if you want the honest truth. I think some of his inexperience comes out in some of his statements and proposals, and that worries me.
What a damn shame and embarassment that in a country like the US, we cannot come up with someone who REALLY deserves the position. But then again, who'd want to inherit the nightmare that 8 years of Dubya are leaving.
Again, the bottom line: DEMOCRATS IN 2008.
"Arabs (along with gays) are the last remaining groups Americans feel comfortable stereotyping...."
What about white women? No one seems to mind openly calling Hillary Clinton a b-tch.
By the way, Obama has the highest poll numbers of any Dem. candidate when going head to head against all Rep. candidates.
With a little Iowa luck, we could see Obama and Huckabee gaining momentum, possibly even jumping out front and canceling the Giuliani vs. Clinton contest we all dread. In that scenario, Obama's name would not be any big negative deal, and the less we have authors dwelling on this silly subject, the better.
The problem with these vicious attacks is that they work. Not with liberals, of course, but a substantial number of swing voters can be influenced. Bush/Cheney/Rove attacks on McCain and Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, using lies and innuendo, were enough to make a difference in close elections. The Democrats' responses, or lack thereof, played right into the hands of the mean-spirited right wingers. They should not again make this mistake, and I don't think Obama will. He shouldn't respond in kind, but he should respond by challenging the lies and setting the record straight, in which case the tactic would likely backfire on its originators.
"Arabs (along with gays) are the last remaining groups Americans feel comfortable stereotyping and presuming guilty of whatever."
Apart from atheists.
I know a good scary thriller gets people worked up, but as it is right now, the majority of America does not identify with conservative power. And many of those walking away from the GOP are asking, why the hell would I vote for a democrat? Perhaps this group is the reason Ron Paul recently found some success.
Anyway, I think Tristam is alluding Obama has a very strong chance of becoming the Democratic presidential candidate come summer, 2008. Tristam's concern is Obama would fail to win the presidency because of the reasons given above -and this is regardless of the reality that any of the top 5 Democratic candidates would have a better chance of winning the WH than any of the GOP.
Hype and PR and popcorn sales all to the side, a democratic candidate would have to be a judged a terrorist not to get elected.
Its a shame Barak Obama isn't a Muslim. Most Muslims I know have more integrity then Mr. Obama does.
The pitch fork and burning torch bearers of this nation of ignorants will be more then happy to be lead around the block like they have a ring in their collective noses, wanting someone, anyone, into which they can jab with their primative weapon. And after they have felled them, they will be only to happy to drag the innocent to the nearest tree, and hang them, legs kicking, for all to see.
"THAT, you see THAT? THAT - is what we do with them Aaraabs who come around here, looking to start trouble and attack us!"
Geez, I should write copy for Rush - what do you think?
Two arguments:
1) Technically Obama is a warmonger. He signed Bush's position paper calling for sanctions and possible military action against Iran. Threatening or using force as a method of coercing a population in an act of terrorism. Therefore, Obama is a terrorist. Q.E.D.
2) Regarding voting for whores. I would rather expend my vote on a drug addicted, HIV/AIDS positive DC streetwalker, rather than an operative of the military/industrial/corporate complex. At least I know how badly I would be getting screwed by the hooker, and how likely it would be that I would end up dead at their hands, either from disease or a simple knife in the ribs.
Politicians make much mileage off the simple fact that the majority of Americans are just plain dumb and ill-informed (and seeemingly proud of it). This stupidity quadruples when you add race into the mix. Your common American tends to think that all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arabs, never understanding the distinction between the two. The politicians (more specifically, the Skull and Boners who run both major parties) understand that most voters don't know the difference, and they also know that most American voters simply don't CARE if there's a difference.
Appealing to white solidarity in 2008 will work just as effectively as it did in 1968, despite the fact that many are expressing a desire to support Obama. In 2007, race still overwhelms all other considerations, and if you don't believe me, wait until some of the early primary results start rolling in...
Obama has chance to be nominated. Dennis does not. Obama could bring welcome change, because he really does have a capacity to view the world differently than the other white bred contenders. On the other hand, the US does deserve another president that will keep the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton syndrome going. More war, more corporate rule. It Obama or more of the same.
Oh please! anyone who is not going to vote for Obama for his name wasn't going to vote Democrat no way no how anyway.
Of interest is that the ever-acerbic Ann Coulter prefers to call him B. Hussein Obama. Do you think that means she might be fostering hatred and prejudice. I'm sure she thinks it's just some cute little thing she likes to do for the fun of it. It should be noted that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim. I believe he is a member of the United Church of Christ.
What a minute!!!! Barry O'Bama isn't Irish?
EZE FLYER -- Regardless of glitzy accessorys, pigs always look the happiest when rolling around in their own $hit, which is symptomatic of what they're doing to this once proud and honorable country.
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
ezeflyer, interesting link. I ended up with nearly a three way tie with Paul at the top by one point then Gravel and McCain. What the hell? At the bottom of my list was Hilary and Romney. I wonder where Nader would have come in?
ezeflyer,
I believe the elites are busy accelerating income and wealth polarization (and the total fascism they yearn for will help them further accelerate that trend) to create a wide gulf between the haves and have-nots so it will be clear who gets the dwindling resources, including the remaining desirable real estate, possibly even in Antarctica. And they will have their Blackwater guards to blast the rest of us if we argue about it.
Didya hear what Jerry Falwell told Chelsea Clinton before he died?
"I don't like Osama, I don't like Obama, and I don't like yo mama."
OK, bad joke...
Darn ... who knew i would end up voting for a whore. I would willingly vote for a whore who is against the war, promises to bring ALL soldiers and marines back to U.S. soil, fixes the economy and gives us hope. Saint Kucinich in the meanwhile will have to wait his turn at the whores table as thats where he will end up anyway, considering he is a democrat.
kivals said:
"There are two kinds of Republicans — (1) smart, sophisticated corporate or wealthy elites; and (2) religious fanatics and common rubes and yokels."
How can group (1) be smart when they are destroying the world that sustains them? No matter how much jewelry you adorn the pig with, it's still a pig.
I just don't buy the argument that future Republican Supreme Court selections will have anything to do with abortion or the culture wars. That is all a smoke screen.
There are two kinds of Republicans -- (1) smart, sophisticated corporate or wealthy elites; and (2) religious fanatics and common rubes and yokels. Group (1) has all the control while they want everyone else, including those in group (2), to think group (2) is in charge. That way group (1) can advance its goals in stealth, and will not face the massive resistance that would appear if everyone knew what was going on.
And group (1)'s goals are frightening -- a unitary executive with dictatorial powers; total control of the non-elites through propaganda and surveillance; the weakening of political and civil liberties; the end of labor protections and the supremacy of corporations over labor, consumers, and the environment, as well as the government and the political system; and even more militarism and resource wars. The people in group (1) were not born monsters, but they have evolved into dangerous, corrupt, pillaging villains through accumulation of wealth and power that was too easy and too satisfying.
Any Republican is more likely than any Democrat to appoint a fifth fascist to the Supreme Court (the four now are Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito), giving the fascists a majority and empowering them to give a Republican president the ability to achieve the goals of group (1). However, Giuliani is the most dangerous as he alone would propose a pro-choice fascist, confusing the Democrats (if they did control the Senate) and weakening resistance.
Obama means well but his admission that the use of nuclear weapons in the 'war on terror' is possible makes him too dangerous to lead a nation. He won't get my vote.
Funny thing. After I took this short test, I found out I was supporting a different candidate. Pick your candidate here:
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
Obama didn't lose me because of his Arabic name. He lost me because he voted for the awful 2005 bankruptcy "reform" bill, which reduced the rights of consumer debtors to benefit needy, suffering credit card companies. His true skin color is neither brown nor black but money green. I'm not sure about Clinton's vote, but I'd wager she supported it too. Edwards is the only one of the leading 3 I can stomach.
Even if BO didn't have the scary name, the GOPathologicals would be running ads with him having coffee with Osama juxtaposed with the towers burning, then they'd produce a montage that implied he was racist, then they'd suggest he had plans to steal the white women, and finally they'd tag him as the best friend of Jong, Chavez, and the Iranian Mullahs.
His name could be Johnny Be Good, it wouldn't matter.
"Kuchinich is the only viable candidate..the rest are whores"
Speaking of vote bating smears.
Jeffrey Toobin's new book: The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
384 pages
ISBN 0385516401
"Bestselling author Jeffrey Toobin takes you into the chambers of the most important—and secret—legal body in our country, the Supreme Court, and reveals the complex dynamic among the nine people who decide the law of the land.Just in time for the 2008 presidential election—where the future of the Court will be at stake—Toobin reveals an institution at a moment of transition, when decades of conservative disgust with the Court have finally produced a conservative majority, with major changes in store on such issues as abortion, civil rights, presidential power, and church-state relations.Based on exclusive interviews with justices themselves, The Nine tells the story of the Court through personalities—from Anthony Kennedy's overwhelming sense of self-importance to Clarence Thomas's well-tended grievances against his critics to David Souter's odd nineteenth-century lifestyle. There is also, for the first time, the full behind-the-scenes story of Bush v. Gore—and Sandra Day O'Connor's fateful breach with George W. Bush, the president she helped place in office. The Nine is the book bestselling author Jeffrey Toobin was born to write. A CNN senior legal analyst and New Yorker staff writer, no one is more superbly qualified to profile the nine justices."
#
DenverCurmudgeon December 4th, 2007 1:37 pm
"The next President will appoint THREE Supreme Court justices. (an area where the repugs are completely under the control of the religious right) Consequently, our next president had better be a Democrat if we still want to be known as "….the land of the free.""
And just exactly what evidence do you have that the next President will appoint three Supreme Court justices?
Lobo Gris
You cannot live in constant fear of your political enemies. You must have at least the courage of your convictions and present your ideas. It is amazing how cowardly some democrats are. Please don't be afraid and you might be surprised by the outcome.
The next President will appoint THREE Supreme Court justices. (an area where the repugs are completely under the control of the religious right) Consequently, our next president had better be a Democrat if we still want to be known as "....the land of the free."
Canuckchuck is completely correct. We're only going to get more status quo from the ding-dongs allowed to go mainstream.
Hoa binh
Kuchinich is the only viable candidate..the rest are whores.
Obama's name is no less a mill-stone around the neck than Clinton.
Jeez, I can't believe I wasted 4 mins reading this crap. I should not expect more of the Daytona Beach News.
Don't underestimate the power of the BIG LIE. Hitler used it to his own advantage and so has the current administration in DC.
Republicans can smear McCain and it works, because their base is racist (re "southern strategy"). Smearing Obama won't be effective, because the only folks who would respond to the racist appeal wouldn't have voted for him regardless of his color or his name; here in the South, being a Democrat is already a race-linked identity. Fritz Hollings was once asked why he said things that were likely to offend the "Christian right" and he replied that they wouldn't vote for him anyway.
From one curmudgeon to another: Lots of luck. I've been around long enough to see what smear campaigns almost inevitably do - the more noxious and absurd their claims the better.
You can almost forgive opponents for trying to win at all costs (isn't it the American way); but they cannot win unless thier slander is accepted by those idiots who could be so easily influenced by such things. Now those ignorant
!&*$# you can blame and for the most part they are also responsible for what Amerikka has become, for them I have nothing but disdain.
"Obama is no Muslim, he's no Arab, he's no "foreigner." His opponents, knowing there's a market for their bait, will ensure that he's perceived as all three."
I disagree. This BS was debunked long ago. Sen.Obama's campaign is managed by a well financed and sophisticated organization. Barack Hussein Obama is not likely to be caught in the propwash of a swift boat.
Obama is just another warmongering, corporate whore that wants Iran bombed, isn't he? Obama is a cousin of Dick Cheney's. He (Obama) didn't seem particularly ashamed of that news. I'd be.
Kucinich 2008