Playing the Muslim Card
Douglass Daniel of the Associated Press wrote in article today that Sarah Palin's latest attack on Barack Obama--in which she claimed that Obama was "palling around with terrorists"-- "carried a racially tinged subtext."
This sent right wing bloggers, even the least crazy among them, into fits of rage. How, they ask, can there be anything "racially tinged" about pointing out Obama's association with Bill Ayres, a white guy?
I realize that in the middle of a hard-fought presidential race it can be hard to see things objectively, but this really isn't all that complicated. Yes, Bill Ayres is a white guy. And the activities that he and his fellow 60s radicals engaged in four decades ago undoubtedly fit the definition of terrorism. But context matters here. Palin's statement wasn't made in a vacuum.
This is 2008 and we live in the era of the War on Terror and 9/11. These days, when people talk about terrorists, they're talking about people who look like Osama bin Laden. We're at war with organizations like al Qaeda, not the Weather Underground.
And the Democratic nominee--to whom Palin's attack was directed--just happens to be a dark-skinned man with a Muslim-sounding name, a man who has been the subject of endless scurrilous rumors claiming that he is some sort of Islamist Manchurian Candidate.
Into that context, Sarah Palin took the stage and accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists." While those who follow the news closely knew that this was a reference to Bill Ayres, she never mentioned Ayres or clarified that she was referring to the acts of a 60s-era radical (acts that took place when Obama was eight years old).
I know that many McCain supporters genuinely believe that Obama's association with Ayres is "fair game," and I don't dispute that in the narrow sense (though I question it's importance). But the McCain campaign isn't just playing the Ayres card here. They're playing the Muslim card. They're using Ayres as a pretext for implying that Obama has terrorist ties in a general sense.
Why else would Palin be so vague? Why else would she not refer to Ayres by name? Why else would she use the word "terrorists"--clearly a loaded word in the post 9/11 era--without any additional modifiers or adjectives? These aren't difficult questions, even if McCain supporters want to pretend they are.
This sent right wing bloggers, even the least crazy among them, into fits of rage. How, they ask, can there be anything "racially tinged" about pointing out Obama's association with Bill Ayres, a white guy?
I realize that in the middle of a hard-fought presidential race it can be hard to see things objectively, but this really isn't all that complicated. Yes, Bill Ayres is a white guy. And the activities that he and his fellow 60s radicals engaged in four decades ago undoubtedly fit the definition of terrorism. But context matters here. Palin's statement wasn't made in a vacuum.
This is 2008 and we live in the era of the War on Terror and 9/11. These days, when people talk about terrorists, they're talking about people who look like Osama bin Laden. We're at war with organizations like al Qaeda, not the Weather Underground.
And the Democratic nominee--to whom Palin's attack was directed--just happens to be a dark-skinned man with a Muslim-sounding name, a man who has been the subject of endless scurrilous rumors claiming that he is some sort of Islamist Manchurian Candidate.
Into that context, Sarah Palin took the stage and accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists." While those who follow the news closely knew that this was a reference to Bill Ayres, she never mentioned Ayres or clarified that she was referring to the acts of a 60s-era radical (acts that took place when Obama was eight years old).
I know that many McCain supporters genuinely believe that Obama's association with Ayres is "fair game," and I don't dispute that in the narrow sense (though I question it's importance). But the McCain campaign isn't just playing the Ayres card here. They're playing the Muslim card. They're using Ayres as a pretext for implying that Obama has terrorist ties in a general sense.
Why else would Palin be so vague? Why else would she not refer to Ayres by name? Why else would she use the word "terrorists"--clearly a loaded word in the post 9/11 era--without any additional modifiers or adjectives? These aren't difficult questions, even if McCain supporters want to pretend they are.
posted by A.L. at 9:55 PM
6 Comments:
Nobody -- and least of all, Sarah Palin -- has any idea what she's saying. This is just dog whistles for the people already disposed to believe the worst about Obama.
Isn't it a flawed strategy to try and re-define an opponent this late in the campaign -- especially after the first debate?
The time to pull this would have been months ago, so that it could color the debate coverage. It's far too late now. It won't have time to gather strength and become a force in the election.
Mark up another strategic failure by the McCain campaign. There is no level on which any objective observer can have any respect for these people. They can't even sling mud competently.
If Obama and his supporters start screaming "racism" at every slur cast their way by the opposition, Obama will lose. Obama knows not to engage in that idiocy, but apparently his supporters do not.
This is a racist country. Obama does not want to run as a black man. Running as a black man he loses. He wants to respond to all in the slurs except the racist ones, and he certainly doesn't want to respond to racist slurs that were not made.
Palin said "terrorist" because Ayers was, at one time, known as a terrorist. He was charged with making and deploying bombs which killed people who were not engaged against his "cause." That is terrorism, and makes the charge of him being a terrorist, at that time, legitimate.
Palin's charge is not letitimate, it is petty and absurd, but her use of the word is not in any way racist.
I intend to vote for Obama. I intend to go get people who can't drive and take them to the polls, hoping that they will vote for Obama. Obama will win if people don't keep making up idiotic racism images for bigots to use as excuses not to vote for him.
Jayhawk,
I'm not saying Obama should cry racism. That would be dumb. But that doesn't mean I can't give my honest opinion. I don't work for the Obama campaign.
I've been very reticent to label anything as racist in this campaign, both in the primary and the general. But this one seems pretty clear to me. I think Palin is playing the Muslim card. That's just my honest opinion.
AI - you are on target with your analysis here.
Ayers is a name that sounds like "air" -
It is hard to attack "air" and make the link to Obama.
Rev. Wright - by contrast - was the incarnation of the white bourgeois idea of a scary black man, an angry brotha.
Air, I mean Ayers - is much tougher to link to Obama even though, irony of ironies, he might be a more legit person to attack.
But Palin was being vague prinarily to conhjure the Muslim image.
Maybe the Obama campaign should have kept their powder dry on this one.
I didn't like to see George Axelrod on the air this morning defending Obama's tenuous connection with Ayers. Granted I only saw an exerpt, but he should be attacking vehemently:
"Why are we talking about his s**t? The stockmarket is way down, the bailout may be failing, and you want to talk about stuff that happened when Obama was eight years old! Give me a break!"
I think the pre-emptive approach that we saw over the weekend, the ads that said McCain was only trying to change the subject, were good and effective. Why bother bringing up Keating and all that? Obama should have a one-line statement on Ayers, and leave McCain-Palin to stew in their own bile.
Yes. They are most defiantly playing the Muslim card. Rather than using the strategy of "dog whistles" usually statements made by surrogate's, they are deliberately bringing these charges on themselves to make such noise that the media will pick up on and report. They are planting the seeds, creating doubt so when the 527's start playing their ads which Will most likely include Obama's Muslim gaffe( OCT. surprise, much more damaging than any Whitey tape)
This seems to be the strategy. Why in the hell would a presidential candidate make such statements
"who is Barack Obama" ?
Not sure if the media outlets would allow that gaffe footage after several weeks of coverage of Obama's Christian pastor.
If they do, and McCain wins this way. There will be UN-rest
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home