Obama (not Gibbs, Obama) Rejects Race as Lead Cause of Criticism
New York Times: President Obama said Friday that he did not believe his race was the cause of fierce criticism aimed at his administration in the contentious national debate over health care, but rather that the cause was a sense of suspicion and distrust many Americans have in their government.
"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are," Mr. Obama told CNN. "That's not the overriding issue here."
In five separate television interviews at the White House, Mr. Obama said he did not agree with former President Jimmy Carter's assertion that racism was fueling the opposition to his administration. He described himself as just the latest in a line of presidents whose motives had been questioned because they were trying to enact major change.
The President has to stay above the racial fray. Why did candidate Barack Obama require Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate?
September 19, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does he have to stay above the racial fray?
September 19, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because his white supporters (some of whom write here) agree with his white critics that African-Americans shouldn't get too uppity just cause the President is black.
September 19, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you know that Obama's view must be identical to TPM's view, or else he's a Chess-Playing liar?
September 19, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, he's lying and only says so because he has to "stay above the racial fray".
September 19, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your typical trollism, "truthseeker":
NO ONE said that racism is the "LEAD" cause of the criticism -- until YOU introduced that distortion.
Nor did anyone say "ALL" the criticism is racist -- EXCEPT the racists who want to dodge the isesue and attempt to discredit Carter.
Your intent also being discrediting Carter.
Your racism is showing.
September 20, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually Carter said it first, not TS. Carter used the word "overwhelming", which to most people is similar to your adjective - "lead"
And when I pointed out Obama's response on an earlier post, your response was that Gibbs doesn't "think" for the President? That was very silly.
September 20, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for putting my stalker in his place.
September 20, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Stalker," racist troll?
98 per cent of the time I don't so much as scan your predictable trash. It is only when I by accident directly encounter your horseshit that I autopsy it in order to expose the hateful swill it is.
I'll say it again, punk-assed troll: you fool NO ONE.
September 20, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't understand why JNagarya thinks that we're trying to say that Carter thinks "ALL" of us are racists. That's not what we're saying.
September 20, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, asshole:
"overwhelming PORTION" is NOT "ALL".
It is your racist ilk that endeavors to make it that as red herring lie basis for your efforts to discredit Carter.
September 20, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Truthseeker nor I used the term "all". Truthseeker used the word "lead" and Carter used the word "overwhelming".
I am being critical of Carter because of his use of the word "overwhelming".
September 20, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire thrust -- from "lalo" on -- has been to push the lie that the accusation of racism is against "ALL".
And that is the SAME effort being made by lying racist troll "truthseeker" -- AND YOU.
AGAIN, jackass: neither "MANY," nor "OVERWHELMING" nor "PORTION," nor "OVERWHELMING PORTION," is spelled "ALL".
And yes -- ASSHOLE: OVERWHELMING is the correct term for it: the unhinged far-right lunatic fringe, especially the racists, have OVERRUN and OVERWHELMED the bounds of reason and civility. Showing up ARMED at VOLATILE political events OVERWHELMS not only reason, not only legistimate concepts of responsibility, but also of the superior right of PUBLIC SAFETY.
If you want to continue to be a mindlessly stupid and illiterate reactionary who fools himself that he is clever, defending America-hating, then don't do it on my time. Don't spew your vapid horseshit in my direction.
September 20, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where on this post did TS, Lalo or myself use the word "all"?
September 20, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go back and READ "lalo"'s efforts on that point -- and "truthseeker" and YOUR efforts to push that.
The issue isn't Carter. And the issue isn't his statement of DOCUMENTED fact on the matter. The issue is THE RADCISM.
You and your racist ilk are doing everything you can to deny the racism -- to avoid the issue entirely -- instead of dealing with it -- by attacking Carter, and his DOCUMENTED statement of the fact.
Tell us -- not me, I don't care to hear any more of your constantly mindless reactionary horseshit -- how these DOCUMENTED instances of BLATANT RACISM are NOT racist; how they are about "policy"; how they are instead about Jimmy Carter:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/75694.html
There's no denying Obama's race plays a role in protests
The not-so-subtle incidents are numerous:
•Last October, John McCain's campaign ousted a Buchanan County, Va., McCain campaign official, Bobby May, for writing a newspaper column that said that if Obama were elected he'd hire rapper Ludacris to paint the White House black and change the national anthem to the "Negro National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson.
•Diane Fedele, who was then the president of a Republican women's club in San Bernardino County, Calif., resigned last October after she sent out a newsletter with a drawing of Obama on a bogus food-stamp coupon surrounded by ribs, watermelon and fried chicken.
•In May, Sherri Goforth, an aide to Republican state Sen. Diane Black of Tennessee, sent an e-mail to Republican staffers showing the first 43 U.S. presidents in stately poses, but Obama's image, as the 44th president, was a pair of bright white cartoonish eyes on a black background.
•In June, Diann Jones, the vice chairman of the Collin County Republican Party in Texas sent an e-mail to local Republican clubs calling a proposal for a $50 gun tax "another terrific idea from the black house and its minions."
•Also in June, South Carolina Republican activist Rusty DePass compared an escaped gorilla from a Columbia zoo to first lady Michelle Obama's ancestors.
•At an August political forum, Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas denied any racial intent when she said that the party was looking for a "great white hope" to lead the party into the future.
_____
No denying it unless, of course, one is a racist liar who'd rather smear Jimmy Carter, and lie about the OBVIOUS AND DOCUMENTED racism to which he speaks, than actually admit the obvious and deal with it head-on.
September 20, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not listening. I am not saying that your examples aren't instances of racism.
I am objecting to Carter's use of the word "overwhelming". You say the issue isn't about Carter. But that is the topic of this post. We are objecting to Carter's comments and discussing the Administration's response.
You brought up the "ALL" term and I still don't understand why, because none of made that accusation of Carter. If you would please show me where we accused Carter of calling us "all" racists, I'm happy to respond.
September 20, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jnag is now in a corner, talking about "efforts" instead of pointing out where we have used blanket statements such as "all." He is a very flawed and emotional debater.
September 21, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/75694.html
There's no denying Obama's race plays a role in protests
The not-so-subtle incidents are numerous:
•Last October, John McCain's campaign ousted a Buchanan County, Va., McCain campaign official, Bobby May, for writing a newspaper column that said that if Obama were elected he'd hire rapper Ludacris to paint the White House black and change the national anthem to the "Negro National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson.
•Diane Fedele, who was then the president of a Republican women's club in San Bernardino County, Calif., resigned last October after she sent out a newsletter with a drawing of Obama on a bogus food-stamp coupon surrounded by ribs, watermelon and fried chicken.
•In May, Sherri Goforth, an aide to Republican state Sen. Diane Black of Tennessee, sent an e-mail to Republican staffers showing the first 43 U.S. presidents in stately poses, but Obama's image, as the 44th president, was a pair of bright white cartoonish eyes on a black background.
•In June, Diann Jones, the vice chairman of the Collin County Republican Party in Texas sent an e-mail to local Republican clubs calling a proposal for a $50 gun tax "another terrific idea from the black house and its minions."
•Also in June, South Carolina Republican activist Rusty DePass compared an escaped gorilla from a Columbia zoo to first lady Michelle Obama's ancestors.
•At an August political forum, Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas denied any racial intent when she said that the party was looking for a "great white hope" to lead the party into the future.
_____
No denying it unless, of course, one is a racist liar who'd rather smear Jimmy Carter, and lie about the OBVIOUS AND DOCUMENTED racism to which he speaks, than actually admit the obvious and deal with it head-on.
Either address the RACISM, troll, or be seen for that you obviously are: a racist apologist for racism.
But keep up the attacks on Carter: I want to be absolutely certain you are even more exposed -- and seen -- as the troll you have all along been.
In short: you've been tricked -- called -- out smarmy juvenile.
September 21, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say it again, asshole:
1. "Lalo" said "ALL," and you and "truthseeker" have been doing everything you can to push that view.
2. As I showed you, asshole, there is NO QUESTION that there is BLATANT racism against President OGBama. That means, asshole, that Carter's allegation is TRUE -- SUBSTANTIATED.
So when are you racist motherfuckers stop attacking what Carter said, basued on LYING, instead of not merely ADMITTING the OBVIOUS racism but going after the RACISTS instead of continuing your OBVIOUS efforts to avoid those facts.
Casrter isn't the issue. Carter's CORRECT comments about the racism are not the issue. The RACISM is the issue.
I'll ask you one more time, and then I'm ignoring all your transparent nonsense:
Are you PAID to lie, or are you stupid for free?
September 21, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once Obama says that a portion of his opponents are racist, the meme will be that the country that elected the first black President is being called racist. Nuance is not a strong suit of MSM.
Why did Obama require Secret Service coverage as early as he did?
September 19, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony, particularly the social position of that elite."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
September 19, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia is reliable -- just ask Microsoft.
Correct, racist?
September 20, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You ask why did he require secret service coverage? My guess would be because they thought it was reasonable given the likelihood of some crazy racist wackoo wanting to shoot him. But it only takes one person to do that.
But the secret service protection has really nothing to do with Carter's comments.
Carter used the term "intensely demonstrated animosity" but never really explaiined what he meant by that. That could be interpreted as just a small group that the secret service has on their list of suspects. Or it could mean everybody at the townhalls that is angry about Obamacare.
September 20, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nuance be damned, you have to pick a "it is/it isn't" position now?
BOTH of them qualified their statements, and both AGREE that race is a factor in some people's minds in criticizing the administration.
Did Carter say somewhere "all" or even "most"? I think he gave many careful disclaimers to what he said.
The virulent backlash to this rather mild observation proves how racist this country is.
The president found himself in that awkward position of "answering" that misunderstood outrage.
You won't find many on the right who say racism doesn't exist. They just think it isn't THEY who are doing it.
As usual they WON this media round of "who screams the loudest gets to be heard."
September 19, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Did Carter say somewhere "all" or even "most"?"
No, he used different words:
“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32869276/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
- I don't know if overwhelming means "all" but I'm sure you can explain. Meanwhile, Wiktionary defines "to overwhelm" as "to engulf".
So, what nuance, again?
September 19, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter said: overwhelming portion of the "of the intensely demonstrated animosity"
That's not everyone who is opposing Obama -- most of the protesters and others opposing the President's plan are not "focused on acting out their hatred" to give his words a rough translation.
And I'm fully willing to accept -- I think you would be also -- that a majority of the protesters who are frothing at the mouth and personally demeaning are racially motivated.
(In fact, my theory is that they may not give a damn about health care but were just waiting for a "mainstream" protest, of any sort, to come along so they could join in and, under that cover, act out their hatred that a black man is in the White House.)
As to why President Obama is "staying above the fray" .... what's to be gained by his becoming engaged?
You aren't going to change the racists' minds (except perhaps by being a good, competent hard-working president over time), and resolving whether, to what extent and why some of his opponents are motivated by race simply isn't his job: he's rather busy running our country.
I suspect Obama's response, in very plain-speak, is more like "Sure there are some who oppose me because Im black. But I'm not changing color and they aren't changing their mind, so I'm ignoring them and concentrating on the others who have legitimate concerns and who may be willing to listen, to communicate, to change their positions or convince me to change mine." As with most things, he's simply being pragmatic.
September 19, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, like she said.
September 19, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make good points Elizabeth, but I'm not convinced.
First of all, we have the White House running away and disagreeing with Carter. They are NOT parsing Carter's words like you and others do at TPM. They are distancing themselves from them. That means that Obama, the White House and plenty of other people understood Carter to imply that all opposition to Obama is driven by racism, the rejection of the idea that an African-American can be president.
Secondly, you make a special emphasis on "intensely demonstrated animosity" in his statement as if it separates the opposition into those who demonstrated the animosity intensely and those who merely oppose him.
I'm not a racist, but I oppose Obama policies intensely. Specifically: military tribunals, unlimited detention, DOMA filings, TARP, Stimulus, Cash for clunkers, education loans and health care reform. In fact, so far I only support "strongly" his policies on credit cards and missile shield.
So what does that make me?
Finally, the biggest problem with Carter's words is that they are loaded. The caveats that you point to are so subtle, it reminds me of "what the definition of "is" is". It seems like a statement that deliberately emphasized the incendiary part while downplaying the various disclaimers.
Given Carter's own history on race, I think he deliberately amplified the volume and played the race card.
But that card has been played so often by now that I wonder if people become desensitized to the charges.
September 20, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you dislike Obama's policies so much why are you so convinced this move isn't just more politics?
I mean that is the only reason to address these remarks at all, let alone "walk away" from a simple truth that some on the right dislike Obama because of his race. It's politics pure and simple.
Obama knows better and so do we.
Consider the fallout from BHO saying "yes, I agree with Jimmy Carter." It would never happen.
For someone with such a withering view of his policies (nothing wrong with that, BTW) you seem to put the man on a pedestal on this issue for some reason.
HE HAS TO SAY THIS, or his crazy opposition gets to CRUCIFY HIM.
Or maybe Joe Wilson can clarify it for you:
HE LIES!!!
September 20, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, but it's not about Obama telling noble lies (even though I think he should tell the truth). It's about Carter.
In the end, I actually agree with how I think Obama is interpreting all this. In my opinion he says that this is no different from how Bush was shown "intense animosity".
When you feel intense animosity because of very strong disagreement with someone, and inability to stop something you believe to be wrong, it's a very short step from derision with "Bushisms" that mock someone's physical ailment (dyslexia) to calling him a fascist, Hitler, etc.
Think of those who generate intense animosity at TPM for their point of view and their comments, and how that animosity is expressed.
September 20, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps but I didn't see a lot of overt racism toward Bush.
I do see a lot toward Obama. I'm sure you are smart enough to require me to list all the recent examples, some from our elected senators and congressmen (see my last blog).
No one called Bush "uppity" or "boy" (both from southern congressmen, natch), accused him of fomenting "forced reparations" or equated white kids beating up a black kid with "Bush's America."
No, racism wasn't employed much against Bush, but a LOT against Obama. That would seem to support Jimmy Carter's complaint.
September 20, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No, racism wasn't employed much against Bush, but a LOT against Obama."
- And cheap jokes taking advantage of dyslexia weren't employed against Obama at all, but a LOT against Bush.
Your point seems to be that some offenses are worse than others. My opinion is that intense animosity is expressed through whatever provides the easiest outlet.
Graduating the severity of offense seems a little hypocritical when I think that the only reason racism wasn't employed against Bush is because Bush wasn't black.
Animosity towards me is expressed by people calling me a racist and a troll, for instance. Even though I could be an African-American lesbian. Or an African-American libertarian male.
It is that special emphasis on racism that I find so disingenuous, because it shows how a real and painful issue is being exploited as an inoculation from any criticism and push-back on all opposition.
September 20, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bushit was dislexic? Is that what explains his subversions of the Cosntitution? Was his penchant for the can't-be-made-legal crime of torture an effort to feel better about himself by proving that his dyslexia wasn't as bad as the bluggering of those subjected to waterboarding?
As for your cnstant lying, racist troll, read these DOCUMENTED instances of BLATANT RACISM which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "policy":
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/75694.html
There's no denying Obama's race plays a role in protests
The not-so-subtle incidents are numerous:
•Last October, John McCain's campaign ousted a Buchanan County, Va., McCain campaign official, Bobby May, for writing a newspaper column that said that if Obama were elected he'd hire rapper Ludacris to paint the White House black and change the national anthem to the "Negro National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson.
•Diane Fedele, who was then the president of a Republican women's club in San Bernardino County, Calif., resigned last October after she sent out a newsletter with a drawing of Obama on a bogus food-stamp coupon surrounded by ribs, watermelon and fried chicken.
•In May, Sherri Goforth, an aide to Republican state Sen. Diane Black of Tennessee, sent an e-mail to Republican staffers showing the first 43 U.S. presidents in stately poses, but Obama's image, as the 44th president, was a pair of bright white cartoonish eyes on a black background.
•In June, Diann Jones, the vice chairman of the Collin County Republican Party in Texas sent an e-mail to local Republican clubs calling a proposal for a $50 gun tax "another terrific idea from the black house and its minions."
•Also in June, South Carolina Republican activist Rusty DePass compared an escaped gorilla from a Columbia zoo to first lady Michelle Obama's ancestors.
•At an August political forum, Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas denied any racial intent when she said that the party was looking for a "great white hope" to lead the party into the future.
_____
No denying it unless, of course, is a racist liar who'd rather smear Jimmy Carter, and lie about the OBVIOUS racism, than actually admit the obvious and deal with it head-on.
September 20, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not saying that there is no racism acting out against Obama. We're being critical of Carter's statement that racism is the "overwhelming" reason for the animosity against Obama.
September 20, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if he had said that you'd have a point. Please re-read it.
September 20, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but JNagarya is being quite vocal accusing me of saying that I am pushing the lie that the accusation of racism is against "ALL". I am trying to explain to him that his accusation is misguided and never have I made this "all" comment.
September 20, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, here's what he actually said:
You'll see there's two modifiers, not just one. Actually three if you count "I think" as ITS MY OPINION.
Maybe he'll dumb down his next comments.
September 20, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that those are the words to focus on. And as Lalo commented above, it's not clear to some of us exactly who Carter is putting in his bucket of "intensely demonstrated animosity".
But JNagarya for some reason is off on a different issue, accusing ME of racist comments and that somehow I've accused Carter of saying that "all" anti-Obama people are racists. But I've never said that.
September 20, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Need to know "exactly who?" LOL see my latest blog...
September 20, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, as Lalo said above, Carter's comment is not as "exact" as your pie chart. Although I commend you for trying to explain it in a graphical form.
Carter also said that "many white people"..."around the country"..."believe that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country". Unfortunately he didn't bother to define the word "many".
No where does he bother to say that racism is just a small percentage of the overall population. I think his choice NOT to make such a comment says alot.
I think if Carter was really speaking about just a small piece of the pie, the White House would have come to his defense. But instead they threw President Carter under the bus.
If his initial comment wasn't so ambiguous, he wouldn't have felt the need to clarify it the next day. We have no idea what he means by "intensely demonstrated animosity". Is that just the people with guns or does that include me because I wrote a blog on TPM which says his healthcare policy is terrible?
Because it was so ambiguous, the next day he backpedaled and at least used more concrete examples (such as the "bury Obama with Kennedy" piece, even though he got that wrong. I'm sure he meant to say bury "Obamacare
PS - why do you feel the need to recommend your own posts? Did you grade your own tests in school?
September 21, 2009 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah attacking someone is a racist way is more offensive than most other things... are you seriously unaware of this?
It's been fun but I don't wanna waste time with some contrarian posturing. I'm sure you'll find other takers... enjoy pretending!!
September 20, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said "PORTION," not "ALL".
You aren't only a racist. You're an overt scumbag.
September 20, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"overwhelming" portion. Why do you leave "overwhelming" out? Eh troll?
September 20, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Illiterate lying propagandist asshole:
PAY ATTENTION:
"overwhelming PORTION" is STILL NOT "ALL" -- your lying efforts to make it so notwithstanding.
Again, troll: you fool NO ONE.
September 20, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said all? You seem lost.
September 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are preaching to the converted.In a response to aother blog, I noted that Pat Buchanan can openly write columns about the benefits of slavery to blacks, and lament that Robert E Lee is not as revered as Martin Luther King Jr, and remain an analyst on MSNBC. l don't think that we'll see Al Sharpton or Rev Jeremiah Wright on MSNBC as "balance" anytime soon. We know the system is rigged to provide cover for race-based statements.
September 19, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes the answer isn't the problem, the question is fucked up.
September 19, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes it's "only" deliberate distortion -- "ALL" for "MANY," "ALL" for "PORTION" -- in order to confabulate red herrings with which to beat up on those who said no such thing. And thus to demonstrate the obvious racism of the confabulator.
September 20, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jimmy Carter Unplugged:
September 20, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink