"George Wallace never threw a bomb," Lewis noted. "He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."Is there really anything else to say? OK, maybe a little. Lewis didn't say McCain/Palin were George Wallace, but he rightfully noted that Wallace--among others--stoked anger and hate for his own political ends, which in turn led to a lot of death. There are a couple other parrellels which are worth noting:
A black lawyer recalls, "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom."[2] Later, when a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor."Fascinating.
He was defeated by John Patterson in Alabama's Democratic gubernatorial primary election in 1958, which at the time was the decisive election, the general election still almost always being a mere formality. This was a political crossroads for Wallace. Patterson ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against, while Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP.[2]
After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race?... I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."[2][4] In the wake of his defeat, Wallace adopted hard-line segregationism, and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election.
UPDATE: For the record, Obama's response was pitch perfect. One thing I truly respect about Barack is his unwillingness to do the Sista Souljah movet. He is nuanced, thoughtful and self-critical when it comes to black folks. But I've never seen him throw us over the bridge--despite white pundits repeatedly calling on him to do it. As a black person, I have tremendous respect for that.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I don't think I have ever been ANY prouder of Barack Obama than the moment on MSNBC when they read his statement and he said that John Lewis was "absolutely right". I admit I was a little nervous that John McCain with his rhetoric might push Obama in a direction of trying to keep his nose clean and distancing himself from John Lewis. But I would have lost TONS of respect for Obama if he had done that and I don't think he would have ever looked the same to other black men either. As a black man I recognize and realize EXACTLY what John McCain is trying to do. I wrote an amaturish post about it on daily kos but the tone of it was real.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/10/75721/137/415/626075
Its evident to me that its not really the muslim or terrorist angle John McCain is shooting for. Those goals are too high. He simply wants to muddy the waters enough so that you see him as a typical N word. Its a disgrace and its dangerous and personally I am glad somebody called him on it.
In closing let me point out that on Rick Warren's Saddleback forum John McCain said John Lewis woudl be one of the three wisest people he would get advice from if elected president. Now I wasnt buying that and a subsequent interview that Motherjones.com did with Representative Lewis confirmed that even though they have been in Congress together for over 20 years, John McCain has NEVER sought John Lewis out for advice on any matter. I am sure he never asked him about whether Arizona should recognize MLK jr.s birthday. (yes I am still heated about that). But I say all of that to say that in the first instance that John McCain had to receive some advice from John Lewis, instead of heeding it he instead tried to throw the man under the bus. If anybody needed anymore proof that John McCain is a liar and a hypocrite I think this should be all you need!
Just a side note. To describe JL Chestnut, Jr. simply as "A black lawyer" sells him a bit short. Chestnut, who died earlier this month, opened the first black law firm in Selma, AL. Through fifty years of legal practice, he was an essential player in the civil right movement. When John Lewis and Martin Luther King, Jr., went to jail, Chestnut was the man who got them out. His biography, "Black in Selma," is an incredible book that provides an eye-opening view of the era he lived through and was part of.
This is truly fascinating. And as one who is fundamentally not interested in power or people pleasing (not that I don't aim to be likable), I absolutely don't understand how one can discard one's honest convictions like Wallace appears to have. Wouldn't such selling out continuously eat away at a person and ultimately make them miserable (no matter how powerful and/or beloved they became as a result)? Seems that regardless of how much one tried to convince oneself that new (calculated) convictions were ultimately correct, it would never truly take. Maybe that's part of the reason why McCain looks so unhappy these days.
Wallace was able to live long enough to redeem himself, in a sense. In his last race for governor he gained the majority of the black vote in Alabama. His repentance seemed genuine to most observers, though who can ever really tell about such things.
I wonder if McCain will ever be able to achieve the same sort of redemption after the way he has dishonored himself these past few years.
Palin is too fucking dense to ever get it.
The most telling aspect of your Wallace clip isn't that he was raised on a platform of bigotry. He simply turned to bigotry as the most effective campaign platform he could find.
This isn't born-and-bred racism, it's opportunistic racism. In fact, it goes beyond racism into an amoral mentality, where the goal justifies any and all means.
This is exactly what we are seeing with McCain today. He's not a racist man, but if racism would win him the election, I don't think he'd hesitate at this point.
When speaking of evil, are there degrees of evil? And if so, which one is deeper, the culturally inbred racism that starts at birth, or the opportunistic racism that comes from a desire to exploit a situation for your own purposes?
opportunistic racism is worse!
George Wallace was able to "redeem himself" because the federal government put serious muscle behind the voting rights of African-Americans.
It's one of structures of oppression things.
Lots of people find it easier to act right when acting right will also let them win elections, hold power, and make money.
John Lewis is not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. It would be a very bad mistake for McCain, FOX news or any other news to try to tar John Lewis as a being a racist radical like they like to tar Sharpton and Jackson and every other AA pol as.
Of all of them, John Lewis has damn well earned to right to call out McCain for what he knows could happen when people are incited to violence. He bears the scars. I know to some his scars aren't the same as McCain's, but he earned them honorably.
I liked Obama's statement, Obama did not reject Lewis' statement, just the comparison to Wallace. Besides, I respect Obama for not "repudiating" Lewis's statement. Lewis damn sure deserves more of Obama's respect than McCain wounded ego.
All of your comments re Wallace and his legacy are addressed at length on "Southern Rock Opera" by Drive-By Truckers.
At this moment, I have a picture of John Lewis on my desk, taken when I met him at an Obama rally here in Atlanta in July. I will treasure that moment until I go to my grave.
Mr. Lewis was perfectly on target.
I remember when Storm Thurmond got older and moved toward trying to salvage his reputation. No matter how hard he and Wallace tried to clean up their act, I never bought it. And I don't buy McCain's act now.
Sporcupine writes: "George Wallace was able to "redeem himself" because the federal government put serious muscle behind the voting rights of African-Americans."
Of course, which is why I put a couple of qualifiers in my comment.
The few things I've read about Wallace at the end of his life made me think he really did regret his segregationist evildoing. I can't say for sure, but maybe his physical helplessness after the shooting gave him some sort of insight into what a bastard he'd been. Call me soft, but I think he made some amends that creatures like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms never bothered to.
The story of Chestnut, and the chilling parallels between Wallace and McCain, put a new light on this. Thank you.
I said this at Marc's, but it's worth repeating: it's not quite about race. Lewis's civil rights analogy is dead on. Whipping up hatred about someone who is "other," who clearly didn't deserve to get where he is, who must have a secret Manchurian plan or else how to explain his rise: this could be about a Jew, a black, a Latino, a gay, a Mormon. You just need a minority to blame, on whose back you can paint a big target: HERE is the person behind all your woes.
They could do this to Jindal: He isn't like you and me. He's different. His family comes from elsewhere. He claims to be a Catholic, but that's not the religion in his blood. He's dangerous. He's a traitor. Can we really know Bobby Jindal? Or is it impossible for someone so unAmerican? Too risky. No wonder moderate Republicans are bailing on these people.
Nate Silver had some interesting things to say about this story today. When McCain's statement came out, Silver predicted Obama would be able to turn the situation to his advantage by doing a Sister Souljah. He updates his post with his surprise that Obama is not throwing Lewis under the bus.
The Obama response is, characteristically, nuanced and intelligent -- but I wouldn't have recognized, without your post, the importance of Obama's support of Lewis. (He qualifies the support, but he does not reject (or denounce or whatever the hell other word you're supposed to put in there) him.)
Loyalty is a virtue, and it makes me feel good about January to know that Obama is not somebody who forgets the people who've got him to where he is.
Remember the little old white lady who called Obama an Arab terrorist??? Evidently John McCain isnt very convincing. Check out this video of her AFTER the event. Unbelievable.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223708.php
For those of you who'd like to experience the campaign of George Wallace first hand, take a gander at this "Wallace for Governor" comic book that his campaign distributed.
http://www.ep.tc/problems/nineteen/
After the Wes Clark deal I'm especially happy about this. I suppose being so close to the election it's alright to turn it up.
Yeah, it's true, it's not racism against Obama this time. If Obama was Norwegian they'd still do it. That sure as hell doesn't make it okay. I don't know what the right word is for the creepy "Who is Barack Obama?"/"Palling around with terrorists" bullshit McCain/Palin are pulling. Is there a word stronger than demagoguery?
"But I've never seen him throw us over the bridge--despite white pundits repeatedly calling on him to do it. As a black person, I have tremendous respect for that."
true, and yet--more than that.
as a human being, i have tremendous respect for that.
i'm white, but i still respect his refusal to go into the defensive crouch, his refusal to cringe when the wing-nuts screech and jibber.
nothing about it makes me think, "yeah, he sticks up for other black people".
i just think, "yeah, he sticks up for what's right."
Yes I was quite happy with Obama's response. The only thing I wish he did was included a note that other Republicans have said the same thing in the body of the main paragraph. That's totally quibbling of course since they did include it in the subsequent paragraphs.
I hope that Obama can be as nuanced and politic when he enters the Oval office with freaking mess of a government under his watch.
As for the Wallace opportunistic racist issue--the parallels to McCain are scary. I am hoping that it is the remnants of his honor that is keeping him from dropping the Wright Bomb and not a matter of political timing. Americans are a forgiving bunch and if he manages to lose/win with dignity he will be hailed inspite of this week of demagogery -- look at HRC's rehabilitation after "white hardworking Americans"
awesome post followed by great discussion in comments. I'm very grateful for opp to read comments like these and that this one of the few atlantic blogs allowing them.
Brian's point is major yo: without tnc's addressing of the situation Nate silver's misreading of the situation would be granted too much philosophical charity.
Not really seeing the parallel. Wallace was a segregationist. In addition, he may, as Lewis claims, have indirectly incited some people to commit some atrocious acts. McCain has a running mate who's accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists." McCain himself has somewhat suggestively asked, "who is the real Barack Obama?" A few people at McCain's rallies have acted a little excited by these charges and loaded rhetorical questions. So far, no one's been hurt, and no one's tried to hurt anyone. To me, the kind of attacks Palin and McCain have made on Obama, while stupid of course, are positively tame compared to the sorts of things, say, Nixon would have said of this guy. Sure, Palin's a demagogue, but it's like comparing Jesse Jackson's anti-Semitism to Hitler's. Whole different order of magnitude.
"Loyalty is a virtue, and it makes me feel good about January to know that Obama is not somebody who forgets the people who've got him to where he is."
Well he did throw Rev Wright under the bus.
I think they may have been trying to play on xenophobia more than specific racism, similar to the way Hillary did. It was kind of clear then, and pretty much certain now, that Hillary's strategists wanted to play on Obama being "foreign" in some way. Although Hillary still lost it may have at least appeared that the strategy gained her a few states.
Plus Obama kind of forgave Hillary. He also ran an ad in Spanish that basically implied McCain hates Mexicans, which I've never seen evidence of that. So possibly McCain also figured "yeah it's kind of sleazy, but after the election we'll all forgive and forget anyway so who cares? What matters now is winning!" Then realized it went further than he expected.
"Well he did throw Rev Wright under the bus."
Oh come on, Why oh why, are you seriously comparing Congressman Lewis to Reverend Wright?
Well he did throw Rev Wright under the bus.
First, one of my fondest hopes is that the phrase "thrown under the bus" is one that will soon be retired permanently. Obviously not your fault, Why oh why, but it is, easily, the most hackneyed, annoying and overused phrase in modern political discourse. I would like to plead with everyone reading this to please join me in a moratorium on its use.
Second, as much as I value loyalty, and I value it considerably, it had become pretty clear that Reverend Wright was beginning to make himself more of a problem to the Obama campaign than was really tenable. Obama did attempt for a few weeks there to gently admonish him without abandoning him completely but, for some reason, Wright felt like he needed to keep putting himself out there in undisciplined attack mode. Not helpful for the first truly viable black candidate for President in this country's history.
I guess what I am saying is that, although it often doesn't, loyalty needs to go both ways and, in this case, I absolutely believe the betrayal was the other way around. Wright's a pretty bright guy. He knew exactly what he was doing by running his mouth at the National Press Club and elsewhere. He knew he was hurting Obama's chances. It was Wright who abandoned his loyalty to Obama first. I don't claim to be any kind of political genius at reading the electorate but even I could see where this stuff with Wright was going. If Obama had not cut him off in the way he did, we absolutely would be looking at the Clinton candidacy right now and it would have been Wright's fault, but then we could all sit around and praise Obama for his loyalty.
bravo brent. Haha I think that last sentence was sarcasm bc the second guessing of obama the boa constrictor has become a national pasttime
Well he did throw Rev Wright under the bus.
Posted by Why oh why
By any definition he did NOT throw Rev Wright under the bus. He stood by him even after the you tube videos came out that were taken out of context and stood to ruin Rev Wright's legacy of more than 20 years of his ministry. Barack Obama came out strongly against the words on the videos but he said he couldnt disown Rev Wright because of how close they were. But Rev. Wright decided to try to ride th ewave of publicity and push his own agenda. If he truly had Barack's best interests at heart he could have just faded into the background and allowed the issue to fizzle. Instead he went to Washington and on a notional stage decided to make more objectional comments about America. Now there is a time when it is just simply not practical to keep a person in your circle when they make it clear that they are not working in your best interest. Still to this day though when the subject of Rev Wright comes up Barack Obama makes sure to point out that he was a former Marine and that he has recieved high awards from different presidents for his work as proof that his patriotism shouldn't be questioned. Thats not throwing soeone under the bus.
No, Wright played himself. Big time. Obama tried to handle this in a nuanced way, but Wright pulled that stupid stunt at the NPC. What was Barack supposed to say? I agree that AIDS is a government plot?
You missed one other parallel -- McCain's campaign likes to explain why their campaign has gone the way it has, by saying when they did substantive stuff last year, nobody in the MSM paid any attention.
So they are like Wallace in the most telling way: when they faced the choice between losing righteously, and trying to win the only way they thought they could -- guess what they chose?
foo
Barack Obama and Bill Burton should have condemned the activist who was selectively choosing haters from the crowd and videoing them. What a crock, Tim Russo gets a few idiots get on tape, baits them into showing the world how stupid they are, and now Barack Obama gains credibility from it. He gets the opportunity to appear grateful to McCain for condemning them. These idiots no more represent the average McCain supporter than a black man who dresses in "street clothes" represents a fool street drug dealer filled with hate and taking advantage of those with problems in his community, just because they both support Obama. This Tim Russo jerk videographer wants to find redneck fools that Obama can use to make himself look better and justify Rev. Wright's hate speech. Tim Russo is even quoted on Obama's website. He should be banned from having anything to do with Obama's campaign. John McCain would have had that kind of junk taken down and refused to allow the poster any further access. This is all all smoke and mirrors Chicago style politics. The truth is, Barack Obama is not even able to get the same type of security clearance that you and I would have to get if we applied for a job in the Secret Services, just from the Resko connection alone. And people want him to be Commander in Chief. Somebody explain to me, how this is defensible?
Asher, I think you underestimate the role of environment in the difference between McCain and Wallace. Transport either one to the other's time and place and they might be dificult to tell apart.
As for "So far, no one's been hurt, and no one's tried to hurt anyone." - when the mob gets raised against black folks in this country, those with violent tendencies exhibit a notable lack of discretion when picking their targets- any person of color will do. Examples might include Tulsa, East St. Louis, the New York City draft riots...so the level of concern raised by McCain's recent rallies is not at all out of place. Obama has Secret Service protection- my family doesn't, and us "race-mixers" are always at the top of the list.
By the way, for anyone interested, John Lewis' book "Walking With the Wind" is a must-read. He is one of my personal heroes and his name should be as well-known to the average American as MLK.
John Lewis is simply taking advantage of his 15 minutes to get some press, since it's been decades since he's actually done anything press-worthy.
Threatened by the Ayers and ACORN connections, it was the next logical step.
Besides, when did we lose the right to 'hate'? Was that in the Patriot Act or the FISA bill?
Perhaps it was hidden somewhere in the Bailout bill Rep Lewis voted for.
@John: They may not represent the average McCain supporter, but this week they could go to McCain-Palin events and yell "kill him" and McCain or Palin would keep speaking, and the people around them would nod and cheer. If the candidate stopped and denounced them, if the people around them acted like this person was abhorrent and didn't speak for them, people wouldn't be so quick to assume that all those McCain supporters at the rally agree with the sentiment.
Almost every politician in Chicago has a connection to Rezko, and, no, I'm not willing to refuse them all a chance at public office. I somehow doubt none of them would qualify for the SS. You guys truly have nothing except a six-degrees-of-separation sliming, do you? Is getting behind McCain's economic plan and selling it to people really so impossible that this is better?
Besides, when did we lose the right to 'hate'?
Well you haven't. No one, including Lewis has suggested that you have so I am not sure why you are asking. So my advice to supporters of John McCain would be to express that hate and defend the haters as much as you possibly can. Surrogates should go on tv and tell everyone that people have the right to yell out that Obama is a terrorist and that he should be killed. Now, mind you it may not seem to be working at first. It may seem as if McCain's numbers in the polls are going down because of this approach but trust me, keep at it. Its bound to turn independents and moderates towards your point of view at some point. Good luck!
It's absurd to try and draw a parallel between McCain and Wallace. One was explicitly an agent of hatred and intolerance; the other had the audacity to question his opponent's past associations. If you don't see a huge gap between these individuals - in terms of motive, rhetoric, effect - then you may have a problem of perspective.
Its funny how the rethugs keep trying to dismiss the situation as a "few kooks in the crowd" apparently unwilling to acknowledge the 3 McCain supporters who with microphone in hand repeated chain email smears against Barack Obama during McCain's townhalls last week. Reality doesn't factor in for most rethugs and thats cool. Reality is waiting for them on Nov 5th though. Karen Tumulty over at time.com has a GREAT blog up today about her experience at a McCain campaign office. Its a must read and it goes to show that John McCain's campaign IS IN FACT promoting the notion that Barack Obama is a muslim, is a terrorist sympathizer, and a socialist.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/a_view_from_the_ground.html
Another great represntative of the Republican party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUovpF9LWU
The comparison between McCain/Palin and Wallace is brilliant and valid. This is a type of politicking that has a long history in this country and is still being done all the time. I could give numerous recent examples from here in Arizona where illegal immigration is one of the issues that can make or break a political career.
I don't normally take on wingnuts and try to have a discussion, but I have one question about Ayers I've been wanting to ask.
Given that Palin is such a "good Christian" and given that Ayers reformed a long time ago and has led a good life, why are all of these good Christians not able to forgive him? I grew up as a Catholic and I know the teachings of Jesus Christ quite well. I know that the central theme of the new testament is forgiveness.
So, why do these "good" people who follow Sarah Palin call Ayers a terrorist and say that Obama pals around with terrorists and should be killed?
Palin's Christianity is a joke and so is theirs.
I think their motive is pretty damn clear.
@MikeF
McCain and Palin are doing more than merely "questioning" Obama's past associations. Saying that Obama "pals around with terrorists" is not a truthful or enlightening statement, it's hate mongering. Enciting hatred and anger for political gain is the parallel. I think that's as far as it goes.
John Lewis's comments were spot on and so was Obama's response.
And another poster is right, the republicans are trying to pass this off as own or two people in the crowds, but you can't ignore the thundering applause that has followed all the comments.
@Tessa
The "palling around with terrorists" comment was stupid and ugly, but it's not hate-mongering. It was a lame attempt to heap scorn on the opponent's judgment; that's what pols do. Look at the things that real hate-mongers like Wallace said and did, and tell me if you really think that drawing an equivalence is appropriate.
Folks
1. John Lewis, in terms of civil rights heroes, is only a half step behind MLK and Thurgood Marshall. He is the hero of blacks and whites (John McCain , David Halberstam). As Nate Silver and others have pointed out, to try to compare Lewis with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Rev. Wright is foolish. Short of catching Lewis with a 13 year old girl or uttering something like Professor Griff, no one (including Obama) running for president has the gravitas to take him down/throw him under the bus.
2. What Lewis said is similar to David Gergen, Rachel Maddow, and to a lesser extent, repubs like Rep. Ray LaHood and former McCain campaign manager Mark Salter. The only difference is that Lewis added the perspective of someone who was nearly killed by mob violence.
3. Obama response-- classy and pitch perfect. Praises McCain for toning things down, tells Lewis the Wallace analogy was a bit much (which Lewis later clarified) but essentially on point, and put the blame on Palin, who really has no defense. Obama has triangulated better than Clinton-- and also has preempted/lessened any Rev. Wright stuff that is bound to occur.
4. The McCain campaign has been put on notice-- if you don't speak out against the Crazy Train aspect of your campaign rallies, your legacy will be responsibility for any fringe group/crackpot assasination attempt against Obama or supporters.
Yes, it is a week now since McCain and Palin "went negative". Guess what, the polls have gotten even worse for them. Obama is at an all-time high on RCP and pollster.com, while McCain is at an all-time low on RCP. The margin is 7.7% on RCP & 8.6% on pollster.
Folks, if this goes on, we are entering landslide territory.
I suspect that is one of the reasons they have stopped digging that particular hole called "William Ayers". They may not even bother with the one labelled "Rev. Jeremiah Wright".
Troopergate and John Lewis' intervention may not seem on the surface to be major pluses for Obama. But they delay McCain by a few more days in straightening out a new message (if there is one). The Lewis broadside takes the focus off William Ayers and onto McCain's campaign style. Troopergate makes America's sweetheart tread a bit more cautiously (some might say "what about you?" to her when she talks about "poor judgment").
Also, America's sweetheart must be wakening up to the fact that this campaign is a loser, and her celebratory claque is composed entirely of the hard right ... a breed that are becoming a diminishing band. If she truly wants to establish herself as a national figure, and generate an appeal beyond the fundies, then she will have to make herself into a more substantive and moderate figure altogether.
If she has any decent advisers who care about her future beyond this campaign, they should be telling her that she can martyr herself for John McCain and the religious base, but destroy her chances of a future Presidential run.
@MikeF
I agree that the hate mongering of Wallace far exceeds anything that has come out of Palin or McCain's mouth. I think that's definitely a fair point to make.
But I don't agree that saying Obama "pals around with terrorists" was meant to draw attention to Obama's "judgment". Even if it were intended that way, it is an extremely irresponsible thing to say given the current wars raging, and given the smears and rumors already being spread about Obama, which surely Palin and McCain are aware of.
There was a soundman with one of the networks, who is Black, who was called out of his name, this week, by folks at the McCain/Palin rallies.
The thing is, Barack Obama is protected by the Secret Service. I'm not overly concerned about Barack Obama.
I'm concerned about the random Black guy who comes across the path of folks from these rallies.
The pages of history of THIS country are littered with Black men and what happened to them when they run across groups of White folks like this.
Just exactly what can be 'misinterpreted' about:
KILL HIM
TERRORIST
BOMB OBAMA
Please explain to me what am I 'misconstruing'.
See, McCain/Palin want to fan the flames, but don't want to be held responsible for what they do.
Not this time. This is on McCain and Palin period.
John Lewis was absolutely on point.
Rikyrah,
You haven't misconstrued a thing.
The fringe right wing smears made their way from the e-mail servers of internet service providers to McCain's campaign "strategists" (using the term loosely) and came out through the mouth of the despicable Sarah Palin.
John Lewis called it.
It's kind of unbelievable to me that some of the discussion here seems to focused on trying to associate some level of guilt to the hatemongering and fearmongering that is now central to McCain's strategy. McCain's hatemongering isn't as bad as George Wallace's hatemongering and so on...
We are now going to analyze the degree to which one politician uses hate and fear tactics compared to another politician who uses/has used hate and fear tactics?
For God's sake, people, think about what you are saying. Hate is hate. When a politician uses this as an election strategy, MAYBE IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE SON OF A BITCH that indicates he might not be your best choice.
Can this be more clear or does everything have to be dissected as though everyone is auditioning to be a pundit on fair and balanced Fox News?
Read what Rikyrah said. This is the kind of sh@@ that gets people killed. Innocent people.
TNC,
John Lewis is living history in regards to the role he played - and continues to play - towards achieving racial equality in this country. He has nothing to apologize for and has said nothing that anyone else needs to apologize for.
Still, as you once put, 'racism is a luxury the (American voter) cannot afford right now', and the same goes for racially-tinged sensitivity. There is a historical realignment within Obama's grasp - the ability to pull states like West Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana into the Democratic fold - and it depends on getting "angry white males" to stop voting against their economic interests and - by extension - moving past their previous prejudices. Really, for the first time, what you would call racist dim-witted hicks are considering voting for a black guy over a white (and as white as white gets) guy because they're worried about their jobs, the economy and the direction of the country. Please don't get distracted by talking about George Wallace. That was thirty five years ago. We're getting close to the goal line and articles like this make me feel like you're taking your eye off the ball.
As for "So far, no one's been hurt, and no one's tried to hurt anyone." - when the mob gets raised against black folks in this country, those with violent tendencies exhibit a notable lack of discretion when picking their targets- any person of color will do. Examples might include Tulsa, East St. Louis, the New York City draft riots...so the level of concern raised by McCain's recent rallies is not at all out of place. Obama has Secret Service protection- my family doesn't, and us "race-mixers" are always at the top of the list.
But the mob hasn't actually been raised. All we've seen, so far as I know, are some angry people at McCain events. At this stage in a campaign, there are always some angry people at campaign events. I went over to an Obama rally in a less than affluent section of Philly yesterday, and there were plenty of people who got just as upset whenever Obama mentioned McCain as some people do at McCain's rallies when he mentions Obama.
@Tessa
I see the "palling around w/terrorists" comment as a crude attempt to shoehorn Obama into a specific narrative, in which Obama is a naive young politician with a cavalier attitude who doesn't get the gravity aspect of the presidency. He "pals around" with Ayers, wants to sit down for tea with Ahmadinejad, doesn't see why strikes into Pakistan might be problematic, etc. "Palling around" isn't a phrase that evokes fear - to me at least it's more evocative of casual bad judgment. "Plotting with" or "scheming alongside" would evoke fear.
There are two problems that I see with the argument that McCain is trying to drum up racial hatred. First, Ayers is white - if McCain were going on and on about Jeremiah Wright, then I would be more inclined to agree with TNC et al. But the only mention of Wright has been an offhand comment by Palin - hardly a full-throttle smear effort on that front. The other point is that McCain has never said anything along the lines of "fear this man" or "Obama will destroy the country" or any of that crap. Have some of his supporters gone way, way over the line? Absolutely. But, that's an inevitable result of partisanship: some people go nuts with it. Remember all of the vitriol aimed at Clinton during the primaries? No one called on Obama to apologize for those of his supporters who called her a bitch or worse, because he did nothing to encourage that behavior.
"I went over to an Obama rally in a less than affluent section of Philly yesterday, and there were plenty of people who got just as upset whenever Obama mentioned McCain as some people do at McCain's rallies when he mentions Obama."
Were they yelling "Kill him"? How about "terrorist"? Maybe "off with his head"!
Please.
And you heard just how many people screaming "terrorist"? "kill him"? "bomb McCain?"
"No one called on Obama to apologize for those of his supporters who called her a bitch or worse, because he did nothing to encourage that behavior."
1.) No one has asked for an apology from McCain.
2.) Your facts are backwards. Obama did not apologize on behalf of his supporters. Instead he rebuked them.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_ludacris_bff.html
It is not unusual for the person behind, or the running-mate, to be more negative. However I think the negativity they chose to do was too explosive and dishonest. I say this as a McCain supporter. I think comparing it to Wallace is a bit extreme, because Wallace ran a pretty overtly segregationist campaign, but it's also possible Lewis was a bit misconstrued.
That said I think people who go to rallies are not necessarily typical of the candidate's voters. In my limited experience rallies, etc bring out people far more motivated and therefore oftentimes more extreme. The Dole rally I went to was fairly classy compared to this, if much too loud for me, but it was just to announce his candidacy. Likewise people are cowardly and also they may feel it's pointless. I've lambasted racist or hateful people in my life, but it's never really changed their mind in my experience. It's rarely even made them lose the respect of others. I'll still do it, but I can kind of see why weaker people just "give up." (Plus some things I've done I suppose could also seem like abetting. I remember one guy said the most awful stuff and I did smile because he frightened me a little. I didn't want to freak him out and I left as soon as I could)
Obama and all his supporters have been extremely cautious of not attacking McCain too personally.
Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that the Republicans were making fun of Obama for agreeing so many times with McCain during their first debate?
Out of the hundreds of possible approaches, why did McCain choose the terrorist card? What do Americans immediately think of when they hear that someone’s a terrorist?
Has any presidential nominees ever called his opponent a NAZI?
Why not?
We have spent over a trillion dollars to kill terrorists.
Now we are LED to believe, by inference, that one of the candidates (who happens to be an African American), is a terrorist. It’s a very sad day in American history.
It's pretty amazing that people can view remarks like "pallin around with terrorists" as racially inflamatory(and you actually have to put a bit of work in to read any racial aspect into that quote at all) yet view an explicit comparison between McCain and George Wallace(!) as laudable.
Still, at least this post illustrates how much the impressions of what is happening at McCain's rallies are being formed by people who haven't been within a hundred miles of one.