Race and Religion

This morning the New York times has an article analyzing the dynamic of race in the Democratic primary. Given that Obama was unable, again, to "seal the deal" with blue collar whites, the New York Times investigated what factor his "blackness" is having on white voters.

The article quotes independent pollster Peter Hart:

"The big question about Barack Obama from the very beginning has been, Is he safe? . . . . Safe in terms of both the cultural values that he has, and about whether he is strong enough to be commander in chief."

I think Hart is on to something, but neither he nor the article articulate the other dynamic: religion.

Specifically, I think it is far more pervasive than talked about in the news media that Americans believe in their heart-of-hearts that Obama is Muslim. So, Hart is right that people want to know if he's "safe," but with regard to whether or not he's really one of "them," one of our enemies, the people we're fighting "over there", the people who attacked us on 9/11.

This notion of his Muslim roots crops up everywhere. A church in South Carolina posted on their church sign the following:

Obama Osama Hmmmm. Are they brothers?

When asked about the sign, the pastor of the church said that he didn't mean to offend anyone, he just thought it was worth thinking about the connection, suggesting that they were "brothers" because of a shared faith.

My own neighbors ask me whether I think that his "past" and his "background" will surface during an Obama presidency. When I asked what they were referring to, they mentioned Obama's Muslim father and step-father, his education in Indonesia at a "madrasa" (another name for school, by the way, not ultra fundamentalist, Islamist school). When I explained what I knew of Obama's background and his current alignment with the Christian faith, they were still unconvinced that Obama was really who he seemed to be.

So, I think another strong undercurrent that explains Clinton's continued success and Obama's failure to win over a specific demographic in the Democratic party, has as much to do with religion as it does race.

"As Far As I Know"

Last Sunday, Hillary Clinton was on "60 Minutes." In her interview with Steve Kroft, he asked her about the comments a supporter had raised of Obama during a campaign rally. The supporter had said that he thought Obama did not know the national anthem and that he was a Muslim.

Kroft asked her if she thought that Obama is Muslim. Clinton's response:

No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

As far as I know.

That's one hell of a qualifier: With those five words, she left open the possibility that there might be something in his past that would make one suspect he is or was Muslim, as far as she knows.

It's worth noting that her campaign was behind the claim circulated a year ago that Obama was educated in a madrasa as a boy in Indonesia (in American lexicon that means terrorist training camp; but in Arabic it simply means school; he was educated in a madrasa, but in the Arabic, not the American sense).

The insinuation that Obama is Muslim is being used as a slur, an attack. The implication is that it's a bad thing to be Muslim. To be Muslim is to be a bad guy, a terrorist, one of them. Wanted: Dead or Alive (In Bush's worldview).

Can you imagine if "Jew" were being used in our public discourse in the same way? [I grant that sometimes it is . . .]

I have yet to hear any outrage over the use of the label "Muslim" in this way. The only outrage I hear is over the attempt by various forces, including the Clinton campaign, to label Obama Muslim when in fact he's Christian. The response is more than simply to correct the record: "No, he's not Muslim, he's Christian." It is an attempt to redeem him or clear him from being one of them: "No, he's not a terrorist, he's one of us."

So, I am disgusted by the Clinton campaign for attempting to smear Obama by insinuating that he's Muslim. I am equally disgusted that such a tactic works in this theoretically inclusive culture.

[I can imagine a critic reading this blog post and calling me a stupid idealist, a softy, who does not understand that they are, indeed, the bad guys out to get us. But, for every radical terrorist who might wish Americans harm there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims who want nothing more than what Americans want: security, love, sustinence, life.]

Demeaning Internet-Savvy Voters

I've gotten in the habit of reading the "inside baseball" of politics website Politico.com. It's not a place to find in-depth reporting of pressing national issues, but a place to read what the insiders' perspectives of the presidential campaign are.

Today, Politico reported on Clinton's efforts in the days ahead. The article notes that Clinton aims to compete in states like Wyoming and Mississippi, states that Obama is predicted to win.

Of Wyoming, one of Clinton's lead supporters in the state, Kathy Karpan, a former candidate for Governor, said

“We are going to do very well with the rank and file. The question is, will those people who get captivated by e-mails” — Obama supporters — “be willing to sit through the call to order, the nominating and seconding speeches. It takes a little bit of patience and interest in the process to do this,” she said.

Let's unpack what's being said here. Obama supporters, especially young supporters (since presumably, they are the ones "captivated by email," and also more likely to support his campaign), don't have, at best, the attention span, at worst, the intelligence to follow the voting process in Wyoming. Ouch.

There's another implication here, too, which is that Obama supporters are not "rank-and-file members of the party." That is, they are outsiders, and don't really belong.

Where did the inclusive, big tent party go?

Sad.

Isabel Faye

Isabel will be 7 months at the end of this week. Hard to comprehend how fast she is growing and changing!

Politicizing 9/11

Yesterday, the big news was that the U.S. plans this year to prosecute 6 suspects involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although I am glad to see the U.S. moving forward on an effort to exact justice on detainees, I am deeply suspicious of the timing.

I am not alone in this suspicion. The New York Times is reporting today that the timing "suits Bush" as he works to improve his record in the history books. The article also notes it likely will help the Republican nominee. Indeed.

Justice ought not be politicized. But, I think we have another example of the Bush administration politicizing the judicial process (recall the firing of 9 federal attorneys two years ago, and the implication that they were fired for political reasons).

If we had evidence on the 6 defendants before now, then there should have been a military trial before now.

Instead, the Bush administration is going to try one last time to maximize Americans' fear of terrorist attacks by forcing us to relive 9/11 just in time for the presidential elections.

The implication, of course, is that John McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) will benefit by public attention on fear, security, and 9/11.

Disgusting.

Super Tuesday --

--is my Super Bowl Sunday!

The Sunday Morning Talk Shows

I have become a religious watcher of the Sunday morning talk show Meet the Press. I "DVR" the show and watch it when I'm up and Isabel is mellow. I enjoy Russert's unblinking questions of our major politicians, and I enjoy the roundtable commentary of the pundits who speculate on polls, campaign strategies and political stumbles.

One thing that has been bugging, me, though, is the lack of independence of the pundits Russert has on. This last Sunday he had on his usual roundtable of Bob Shrum, Mike Murphy, James Carville, and Mary Matalin. All of them have ties to some of the current candidates running for office (Carville worked for Bill Clinton; Murphy worked for John McCain). Their own current and former loyalties seem to interfere with their abilities to look squarely and evenly at the contenders. Carville, for example, loves Hillary Clinton, so when he starts to question Obama's abilities and talents, one wonders if he's not trying to help Hillary out a little by singing her praises and questioning Obama.

Indeed, the New York Times wrote an article analyzing this very issue. So, clearly, I'm not the only one bothered by this picture.

I think what worries me is that people less knowledgeable about the insiders has no idea what the allegiances and alliances of the pundits are, and so take them at their word. I wish that more was said during their introductions to highlight their relationships, and possibly to even question their assessments because of their relationships.

I don't think that they should be disqualified from being part of the pundit class, but I do think it should be clearer what their historical relationships are. That way, viewers can judge for themselves whether the pundits are being thoughtful or simply loyal.