Well, aside from the obvious.
Like our friend Geraldine Ferraro, Nader is stuck in the past, and has certain expectations of a black politician:
There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."
Let's look at his remarks a little more closely.
"Talk white," eh? Is he really talking "white" or is he talking like a Harvard-educated lawyer? Must we really look at a politician's ability to speak to multiple demographics (I seem to recall Hillary Clinton's wonderful ability to drawl a little with the accent of whatever region she's in) and criticize them for it? Should a black politician speak only ebonics? Perhaps they should have rap concerts instead of rallies. Are we realizing how ridiculous this is, yet, Ralph?
Now, I'm as familiar with black comedians as anyone who has Comedy Central, and plenty of them have "white guy talks like this, and black guy talks like this" routines. While a tired trope by now, most of us agree that, yes, there are some linguistic and cultural differences between mainstream black and mainstream white cultures. We tend to give black comedians a pass on it, because it's observational, it can be funny despite the age of the trope, and since blacks have been on the recieving end of racial bias for so long, a little harmless turnabout can be fair play.
Our friend Jeremiah Wright took this to a whole new level at the NAACP dinner a couple months back, but this was just before he made a fool of himself at the Press Club, so I'm going to give him a pass on that, too.
So what's Nader's excuse? What? Still not convinced that he's out of line? Try this:
"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."
Did you hear that, black politicians? You should be inner city and rural candidates, define your candidacy by your skin color, even if you happen to think of yourself as an American first. I am a great admirer of Jesse Jackson's candidacies in the '80s and am certain that Barack Obama would not be where he is today had Jackson never run, but the strength of Jackson's appeal was never broad-based enough to make a serious run for the White House. What Nader is doing here is complaining that Obama is campaigning as an American. Successfully.
"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
Why, Ralph? Why must we be obsessed with the color of the man's skin? Are you suggesting that Obama's repeated vows to change Washington is not a threat to the "white power structure?" Are his repeated criticisms of George W. Bush, his distant cousin, Dick Cheney, and John Sydney McCain III, all white men, to be met with skepticism because he's denegrating them for their disasterous policies instead of simply railing against "whitey?"
I think the Obama campaign's response speaks for a lot of us:
We are obviously disappointed with these very backward-looking remarks.
Once again, we run into this offhand sort of racial catagorization that does not appear to raise any alarms in these older public figures. Now, it's clear that Nader's time has come and gone (the latest report has him at $2 million in total fundraising with matching funds, assuming the FEC gains quorum and decides to help him), and that something happened in a phone call between Obama and Nader just before he went on Meet The Press a couple months ago to make him decide that he would start treating Obama as a candidate identical to any other Democrat or Republican (though his arguments on this get somewhat strained when we compare George W. Bush and Al Gore). Could it be that Nader's decision to go after Obama has a racial contributing factor?
Or am I just overthinking this Nader thing entirely?
UPDATE: Obama strikes back.
Well, I don't know what we'd be calling it. It's downright delusional, whether it's being said by Karl Rove, Charlie Black, Ralph Nader, or by me. I think those comments -- as I said a minute ago -- are reprehensible. I can't begin to think what the thought process is that goes through some person's mind before they open their mouth and suddenly that comes out... I think this war of words -- whether it's Karl Rove or Ralph Nader -- that's exactly the type of stuff that needs to stop. Because you know what, words and rhetoric, none of that's making college cheaper. None of that's helping people to get the gas this need to go to their job or look for another job, which is what Barack Obama is focused on in this campaign. Obviously, I think those remarks are reprehensible and delusional. But I don't know that I'd dignify them a whole lot more by talking about who said them and why.
Fair enough, sir.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 158 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
