« Twitter roundup | Main | NYT seduced by neuroscience again »

September 28, 2011

Comments

Whatever one may think of Professor Harris-Perry's thesis, one has to admire her use of the word "salvific." I certainly learned something today.

As an interesting sidenote, Professor Harris-Perry's website has as its html title "Melissa Harris-Perry: Professor | Author | African-American | Intellectual." That's the way it comes up when you do a Google search of her name. That makes two things I learned today.

Race, again, is too easy an answer to Obama's problems with the electorate. He comes off to many as non-presidential - as if he's forever a campaigner and not the guy who actually won the office. He's also seen as simply in over his head.

As a Republican, I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, but he NEVER seemed to be too "small" for the office or "in over his head".
Obama's campaign theme of "Change" brought alot of people in without actually defining what "change" meant. Obama is a "big-government" guy, and for alot of people, that wasn't the "Change" they had in mind.

I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, but he NEVER seemed to be too "small" for the office or "in over his head".

This is hard for me to believe. By summer 1994, the CW in Washington was pretty much precisely that Clinton was in over his head, and it was an opinion shared by basically all Republicans and many Democrats to boot. The narrative was more or less "small state governor who got lucky in the '92 primaries, stumbled into Washington with wide and naive eyes, couldn't get any of his policies passed, and burned bridges with his own congressional allies."

I don't think Obama has been stellar, but to me he compares incredibly favorably with Clinton's first two years.

An intriguing thesis I've seen is that race is at work, but not quite in the way Melissa Harris-Perry suggests. The idea is that race helped Obama in 2008. Evidence that such is that case is that a caucasian candidate would never have been nominated for President with such limited experience. Furthermore, twenty years of membership in a racist church would have destroyed a white candidate. The thesis is that by voting for Obama, many people were proving their own racial tolerance. Their eagerness to support a black President validated their own egos.

However, the same dynamic will no longer apply in 2012. Many voters will feel that they proved their freedom from bias in 2008, so they don't have to do it again. Race hucksters like Harris-Perry will try to get voters back into the fold by accusing them of racism, but their support for Obama in 2008 will immunize them from this sort of attack.

No question that race also helped Obama with some people in 2008, especially in the primaries.

This is hard for me to believe. By summer 1994, the CW in Washington was pretty much precisely that Clinton was in over his head, and it was an opinion shared by basically all Republicans and many Democrats to boot.
----------------------
Maybe it's hard to believe, but I don't remember anybody feeling that way, and I lived in Washington back then.

David in Cal is correct - race helped him in 2008. Many whites assuaged their "white guilt" by voting for a black man. Having done so, I don't think many of them would vote that way again - whether the guy is a Democrat or a Republican.

The writer misses the irony of complaining about race hurting Obama in 2012, yet missing the elephant in the room that it helped him in 2008.

What she would have us believe is that a large chunk of people who've abandoned Obama somehow became racists between 2008 & 2012.

Harris-Perry's article was fiercely criticized by liberal pundit Gene Lyons writing in the liberal Salon.com:

The professor actually wrote that. See, certain academics are prone to an odd fundamentalism of the subject of race. Because President Obama is black, under the stern gaze of professor Harris-Perry, nothing else about him matters. Not killing Osama bin Laden, not 9 percent unemployment, only blackness.

Furthermore, unless you're black, you can't possibly understand. Yada, yada, yada. This unfortunate obsession increasingly resembles a photo negative of KKK racial thought. It's useful for intimidating tenure committees staffed by Ph.D.s trained to find racist symbols in the passing clouds. Otherwise, Harris-Perry's becoming a left-wing Michele Bachmann, an attractive woman seeking fame and fortune by saying silly things on cable TV.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2011/09/28/obama_fights_republicans

One work with the "hand" that he or she has been dealt. Whether it is a "bad" or "good" hand. President Obama (a fact) were dealt a "bad hand" (economy). That is a fact that cannot be changed. He has "dealt" with it and is continuing to deal with it; as others has their "heads in the sand". It makes no difference whether who the President may have been or could have been; either way, he or she would have the same "bad hand to deal. So one work with what he or she gets. Therefore, he has done "well" depending on the "support" that he has in Congress or tried "many time"to get. I say, what is going to be is going to be. However, one can be sure, no one can hold another one "back". I am living "proof"
Racism is here forever; we will deal with it wherever we see it. It will never go away and will always "raise" its "ignorant ideas". One do not have to be a Harris-Perry or a Michele Bachman; "racism is a form of ignorance including mental illness that cannot be changed or treated. Therefore, treat it with "hardcore" harness; do not ignore it but deal harsh with it. It was here in B.C. and it is continuing A.D. What else is new?
Therefore, you never stop "fighting" for what you want and believe. The "road" may be "rough" and the "trip" maybe long; but a "Winner" never "Quit" and "Quitter" never "Wins". I've been there and done that. I say, bring it on.

The comments to this entry are closed.