« Symposium on politics and propaganda | Main | FactCheck.org event in Washington »

November 01, 2007


I don't disagree with a thing you say, but I do find one of your turns of phrase very interesting. You write of Obama's campaign theme, "Call it the Rodney King approach to presidential campaigning."

Only five months ago, you complained about John McCain's "slam" of Barack Obama when McCain said, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong." You wrote, "Given Obama's racial background, the danger is that these attacks will be used to trigger ugly racial stereotypes about him, particularly once Republicans shift from bong jokes to talking about cocaine, which Obama admitted to trying in his first book."

It does seem curious that when a Republican uses "Obama" and "bong" in the same sentence, it raises a danger of triggering ugly racial stereotypes, but when you essentially compare Obama to a drug-using, law-breaking lowlife, who by the way happens to be African-American, that's perfectly okay.

I'm not saying it's wrong of you to invoke Rodney King. I am saying it's further evidence that you find racism in remarks from a Republican that would simply pass as ordinary political discourse if they came from others.

...a process-based critique that is not likely to resonate with Democratic primary voters.

I'm not so sure this is true.

This">http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/">This dial group gave the biggest scores of the night to Obama's critique of Clinton's approach to executive transparency, something he linked to Bush administration executive secrecy, and something he drew in contrast with his record of accomplishment on government reform.

Perhaps the focus group was disporpotionately filled with a bunch of process nerds, but I doubt it.

The more Hillary was attacked, at this last debate, for being secretive and dishonest, the more I cringed. If she does end up the nominee, we don't need the Republican candidate hammering the point home saying, "even Obama and Edwards think she's untrustworthy!"

I agree it's better to challenge her on the issues. The Lieberman/Kyl amendment seems like an issue that can do her real damage, without jeopardizing her chances should she survive the primaries. There are probably others.

It's a fair point to object to my King reference so I've deleted it above.

The comments to this entry are closed.