Dump Obama, Embrace Racism
I’m quickly moving past the “Holy shit, is this really happening?” phase to the “of course this is happening and you were stupid to think it wouldn’t happen” phase. The racism and stereotyping bullshit emanating from the left is reaching a fevered pitch. I’m actually beginning to respect the Tea Party and their “Obama as a witch doctor with a bone in his nose” placards; at least they are honest and upfront about it.
It started off with a few oh-so-hilarious references to “Chocolate Carter” and “Mr. Presnint.” It moved on to “Dayum, I thought Obama was gonna be a gangster!” and “we elected a brother so he could bust some caps in whitey’s ass, not sell out to the man.” Now, the left is wholeheartedly embracing right-wing Rovian/Fox News race-baiting tactics:
[Reposted in full.]
My jaw literally dropped when I saw this. The “Progressive Change Campaign Committee,” an anti-Obama group ostensibly on the left founded by the notorious hypocrite Adam Green (who would love for you to move your money to community banks and credit unions but won’t do it for his organization), is running an ad. That Adam Green and PCCC have a vendetta against Barack Obama is not news. That they would put out an ad out essentially calling the President a coward isn’t even a surprise. No, the jaw-dropper was the open race baiting. After claiming that Republicans will cave on tax cuts if Obama just has the guts to make them, the ad switches to a screen with President Obama’s face, urging him to “keep [his] promise.” The President’s face is made extra black.
Here’s what I’m talking about. Below are three photographs of the President. One with a light background but in which he has what looks like same tie as in this ad (and his hair looks strikingly similar too, which makes me wonder if the image was lifted from that event – a campaign event in Flint, MI in 2008). The second is a screenshot of the PCCC ad. Finally, the last picture is what Obama looks like in pictures against a dark background and a wearing a dark suit. The PCCC depiction is in the center. Have a look:
As you can see neither the clothing, nor the setting, nor the dark background can be used as an excuse for blackening the President’s face the way that PCCC chose to do. This is not “simply what happens” when Obama speaks in front of a dark background or in a dark suit. Now, I can’t get into their heads and say for sure if PCCC was trying to be overtly racist or trying to simply put Obama in a bad light (literally) and didn’t care if that made his face darker which could have racial overtones. And it doesn’t matter. The act is this: they are taking the first African American president, and for theatrical effects, blackening him up some more. This kind of depiction is nothing short of racist. One would have to be blind to believe there is no Photoshop dark magic at work here, quite literally. This reminds me of Adam Green’s pal Jane Hamsher and her use of blackface.2 This is sick. This is disgusting. This is beyond belief and beyond words. For an organization that claims to represent the progressive mantle, this should be out of bounds.
There’s another interesting twist to this ad, beyond darkening Obama’s face as they did. I hadn’t caught onto that, until sherijr mentioned it in the comments. Not only did they put Obama against a dark background and darken his face, they also picked a clip of Republican Leader and Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner against a white background, actually making him look lighter than he usually does on TV. Here’s a split screen:
And here’s what sherijr had to say about it – and she said it better than I can:
I commented on how Obama was darker on a black background and Boehner was lighter on a white background. No doubt in my mind upon not just the initial viewing but several viewings- that they intentionally darkened him to set him up as that bad/failure black guy.1
Oh and by the way, can I just point out that the premise of the ad, that even Republicans like John Boehner would vote for a middle-class tax cuts if forced to turned out to be a false, ridiculous premise as well. You see, the House voted on extending the middle class tax cuts only (my opinion on that is that we should let all the Bush tax cuts expire if the GOP won’t compromise on the millionaire’s breaks), and John Boehner voted No. How is it possible that a group so sinister about President Obama’s motives simply takes John Boehner at his word? How is it possible that they don’t see that the GOP leadership has no qualms about holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to giveaways for millionaires? The answer: it’s not possible. They’re not stupid. This is intentional.
The PCCC and Adam Green have been slamming the President on damn nearly everything they can get their hands on. Green has gotten TV time to do the bashing personally. He and his organization has demonized the President, perpetuated the myth that Obama’s progressive reforms and accomplishments simply did not happen, and represented the worst in Left Puritanism, putting ideological rigidity way ahead of progress. But that the PCCC refused to recognize the progressive triumphs of the last two years is one thing. Now they are moving to full blown, open, racism, and they have the galls to ask people to donate money to put this ad on the air.
If any conservative group or a Republican had run this exact same segment in their ad with this exact same depiction of President Obama, the left blogosphere right now would be abuzz in the outrage against the racist overtones of such depiction. And so should we be when a group claiming to represent the left does it. Especially then. As a movement, progressives champion race-consciousness, and so in progressive discourse, there should never be any place for this kind of despicable garbage.
The honorable thing for the PCCC to do, if it wishes to make amends, would be to take the ad down, apologize to the progressive community, the African American community and the President, and donate every penny they raised to put this horrific ad on the air to the Southern Poverty Law Center or the NAACP. I doubt they will, however. Because I doubt they’re honorable. No honorable organization would put this out in their ad. Ever.
Keep it up, y’all. Have fun primarying Obama with Kucinich or Feingold or whothefuckever; just don’t come crawling to colored folks when it becomes obvious that you Great Progressive Leaders have fucked it all up; are on the verge of ushering in the Age of [insert name of Republican jerkwad and please let it be Sarah Palin]; and you desperately need our votes and our donations. You won’t get a penny from me; not because I think Obama is the kitten’s paw, but because I’M SICK OF THE BULLSHIT FROM THE LEFT. Instead of a productive discussion on how to get progressives out of this ditch, many of you are acting like a bunch of know-it-all asshats, and telling some of us who have opinions that it’s not our turn to speak yet.
If you’d pull your heads out of your asses for just a minute, you might stop buying into the Obama sucks meme which is being pushed by nearly every pundit and prominent blogger, and you might realize that you’re being played like a Stradivarius.
Here’s a poll to help you:
- Blacks: 90% approve/6% disapprove
- Democrats: 82/12
- Liberals: 79/16
- Latinos: 56/33
- Post grads: 56/41
- UPDATE: 18-29: 53/38
- UPDATE 2: NBC’s Ana Maria Arumi notes that in the 2010 midterm exit polls, voters 18-29 said they approved of the president’s job by a 62/38 margin, which is close to how they voted in 2008 — 66/32
- Women: 52/43
- 18-34: 49/43
Or, if you prefer, you may continue your death march off the Cliffs of Insanity. It’s up to you.
1 I am reposting sherjr’s full comment because it’s indicative of our some of our my feelings on this issue:
I received the email from Adam Green a couple of days ago – with this ad linked and of course a request for donation to pay for it.. I commented over at bwd’s site immediately that this ad disgusted me, first because of the ignorance imo of once again going after the President instead of the effing republicans (what a freaking waste of $$). Secondly I commented on how Obama was darker on a black background and Boehner was lighter on a white background. No doubt in my mind upon not just the initial viewing but several viewings- that they intentionally darkened him to set him up as that bad/failure black guy. And it really turned my stomach how they gave Boehner a lightened/angelic depiction.
Then it became personal when someone posted on my Facebook to sign on to this ad and I reponded that I would absolutely not support it and that I find it foolish and inept to attack the President when it is the republicans that need to be called out… after that I received several emails attacking me for not ‘pushing’ the president. Its like folks really don’t get or are seriously so fearful of the republicans that all they can do is cry to the President about everything. I am so sick of this crap all around, but from the left it is so ultra stupid. Needless to say I’ve blocked several people from my Facebook. And one other thing, I unsubscribed to Adam Green’s email list nearly a year ago.. and yet funny how I suddenly get his newest email with requests for $$.
Thank you for posting about this, because honestly I really thought I was the only person who saw the darkening of Obama- I’ve not read even one other comment about it until your posting here.
2 In the Balloon Juice clusterfuck that started last night and is still continuing, someone actually said that I was taking Jane Hamsher’s use of blackface out of context, and then that person told me to calm down, ease up on the anger, and direct my anger in the right direction. Derail. Derail. Derail. It’s amazing what people are willing to excuse, isn’t it?
[I'm sure Balloon Juice is going to go bananas again. I'm not dealing with it tonight.]
Thanks for reposting my piece here. Btw, you missed the Obama/Boehner split screen (images taken from the ad). Please feel free to post that as well.
I have torches and a shit-ton of gasoline. Let’s set teh interwebs on fire. The amount of firebagger butt-hurt this is going to cause will be fucking priceless.
oh man, i drank two glasses of scotch writing (more like cutting and pasting) this one. but you know what? fuck it. folks are getting pissed because they are supposed to be the champions of justice! they’re not racist, the right wing is! i don’t like to throw out the racist charge lightly, but this shit is bananas.
folks like deaniac93 up there are calling them out. i saw that her post only had a few comments and a few “likes,” so i thought i’d dial it up to 11 and reblog it.
may bieber have mercy on my soul.
best,
ABL/STM
What is all the fuss? I like my Presidents extra dark. Just like my coffee, and my chocolate. I am also a fan of extra crispy, extra butter, and extra bacon. Mmmmm, bacon.
Here, I’ll toss more fuel on the fire — but I’m using scare quotes, so that will make it okay, right?
Since the demise of SDC and the anti-war movement, straight white “progressive” males haven’t been able to make any meaningful inroads in truly transformative political movements. Civil rights, immigration rights, women’s rights, gay rights, disabled rights — all movements that have profoundly changed our society. And straight white “progressive” men didn’t get to indulge their God-given birthright of being the ones in charge of these movements and getting the credit, poor babies! (I’m talking about those who ran the organizations, not politicians.)
So a black guy comes along and, say, gets healthcare reform legislation passed after the last half-dozen or so white presidents failed. Two of them — FDR and LBJ — never even attempted to pass universal healthcare, despite being the Great White Gods of Progressives. (Sure, the former put Japanese-Americans in camps, didn’t integrate the armed forces, kept most people of color out of the original Social Security Act, and shelved anti-lynching legislation to get New Deal bills past southern Dems, and the latter bombed the shit out of a country in Indochina, but since none of that affected WHITE “PROGRESSIVES!!!,” it doesn’t darken – pun intended – their “progressive” halos.)
And then this same uppity black guy gets some financial regulation legislation passed to make up, in part, for the damage wrought by years and years of fecklessness — including Bill Clinton ending Glass/Steagall.
And he puts two women on the Supreme Court. Signs Lily Ledbetter. Etc., etc., etc. We all know the drill.
But he forgot that only straight white people (usually male) get to define what a “progressive” is. How dare he make them look bad — accomplishing so much when, since the end of the 1960s, they haven’t put any points on the board besides consistently supporting white dudes who lose (Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, et al)? So obviously, the only thing to do is to remind him of his place. Demonizing him, if necessary. I mean, sure, it seems bad — but there are the tender egos of straight white “progressive” men to be considered here, dammit! Who cares if he said very clearly on election night “We won’t get there in one year, or even one term?” If he’s going to have the temerity to take the job that clearly ought to go to Paul-Norm-Ralph KrugchomskyNader, by god, he’d better deliver in LESS than 100 days or we’ll have his head on a pike!
So yeah — I’m sick of the bullshit, too. Sorry, straight white “progressive” angry dudes, but you’ve had decades to try to sell America on the values that you claim to hold dear, and you’ve failed. I’ve been involved in the women’s movement for over 30 years, and while I have met many fine straight white male allies, the heavy lifting and the many many achievements have all been because of the work of women — many of them women of color. Just as the heavy lifting and mortal sacrifices in the civil rights movement fell heaviest upon African Americans (no, makers of “Mississippi Burning,” it wasn’t kindly white FBI guys).
So piss off, “progressive” dudes. You had your shot. You fucked up.
i need a cigarette after reading that! thank you.
oh, and you forgot to mention that he accomplished all of that in the face of the most obstructive bunch of Republicans, evah with a few Blue Dog Democrats thrown in for good measure.
I am furious at the idiocy of ‘progressives’ who will only recognize progress if it meets their pipe dream of what the outcome should be. Social changes that benefit the broadest spectrum of the population come slowly and incrementally. It must be accomplished against the obstruction of established interests, and must also start from a position of compromise with those interests.
Thanks, I need a ciggie too and I quit smoking 12 years ago
I am not at all surprised. I saw it in those optimistic, hallelujah, tear-streamed faces at Obama’s inauguration. Yes, many people want change, but most don’t want to be made uncomfortable in any way. That sort of change is called MAGIC — you know, just wave your wand, Obama, and “Poof” the world is a better place.
I think people’s ability to change is directly proportional to their tolerance for pain.
Now more than ever, I’m convinced that many of my fellow (ha) whites believed Obama was the “magical negro” that Spike Lee talks about, and when he didn’t magically cure anything, they didn’t just say “hey I guess he’s not magic,” they said “hey, he’s deliberately withholding his magic!!” I mostly thought this about “independent” voters but it could apply to “progressives” too (Maher and company apparently thought he was the “magical gangster” or something…. shit, I don’t know).
Carl, you’re right. And the funny thing, there are those of us who are saying “Hey, he was handed a pretty terrible situation, there really isn’t some magic ‘bully pulpit’ that turns Blue Dogs and GOPers into progressive allies, and compromise and giveaways are part of what governing means.”
And yet somehow, WE’RE the “Obots” who think he can do no wrong.
Ugh, no kidding. The whole thing really comes down to some white Democratic senators, several of them Southern, sabotaging him over and over again, and of course the response of the white “progressives” is to blame… the black president, not the white senators. Oh sure, the progs had the Blue Dogs, but they’re saving all their blograge for Obama himself. Yes, if only he had gone “gangster” on him it would have been different. Sure.
Btw Kerry, I forgot to say how much I liked your new (to me) take on the whole thing. It’s funny, I’m leftwing as all hell but I’m starting to think that all the moderate-bashing is racially-tinged, going back to Lieberman, who, even though he deserved everything he got, probably still became a figure of hate in part due to his effectiveness as an Emmanuel Goldstein-like figure for the left, something that was crystalized for me when a Jewish friend told me how ashamed she was of him; wait, shouldn’t I be the ashamed one? I’ve got the whole Republican party representing me. :P And as ABL points out, the firebaggers somehow brought in anti-black racism to bash him!. Sad to say, white people have really not been the vanguard of history for a long time, and we are not dealing with it well (big surprise).
Carl, I started thinking about this first when I read Todd Gitlin’s history “The Sixties,” where he gave one whole chapter to the women’s movement (while acknowledging that women in the peace movement had plenty of reasons to think that the men in SDC were just as piggish as men on the right).
And Armistead Maupin, in one of the “Tales of the City” novels, had a gay character deliver a righteous riposte to some old hippie talking about how “the dream died in the Seventies, man” or something. I believe it was probably Michael Tolliver (the Maupin stand-in) who told the guy essentially (I’m paraphrasing, forgive me) “Well, OUR revolution really didn’t get going until the 1970s” — and that of course was true for the women’s movement as well. I always think about that when I hear somebody lecturing me on how “the left” lost their way. No, YOUR left lost its way. Mine is still going strong, thanks. Maybe because MY left (women’s movement) always had direct services for the neediest and most vulnerable as one of its values — it wasn’t based on revenge fantasies of sticking it to the Corporate RICH!
(Not that that wouldn’t be lovely — but I’m pretty sure dismantling global capitalism isn’t something one guy can do overnight.)
Sorry, I meant “SDS,” of course.
Kerry, if you don’t have your own blog, you should! I definitely think you’re right about the revenge fantasies. One of the non-insane BJ commenters made the same point that these “progressives” sometimes seem to care more about sticking it to the rich than helping the poor. Like you say, the former would be nice but the latter is more important. Obama, of course, actually worked with the poor and understands this, hence the 13-month UI extension.
exactly. revenge may be a dish best served cold, but it has zero nutritional value.
ever considered guest blogging? :)
here’s how i see it: obama has a few weeks to get a bunch of shit done. the gop refused to move from their position of “filibuster everything.” so obama made a choice. give ‘em what they want (extending the tax cuts) so what the people want — those who don’t have all day to trade barbs on the internet — money to put food on the table would be able to do so.
i have donated money to various friends in order to help them when their unemployment ran out and were about to get evicted from their houses. do these people give a flying fuck whether or not a bunch of middle class liberals want to stick it to the billionaires? no. they don’t. people are in a crisis right now, but those who still have jobs and access to broadband internet would rather that folks be thrown out onto the streets at christmas time just to prove a point. that obama did not exact liberal revenge makes him a pussy i guess.
i’m really sick of people and their unmitigated selfishness.
ABL, did you invent that phrase? Because it’s the best one-liner I’ve seen on the Internets in months!
carl-
i did! it just popped out. it’s gonna be a fun night. sanctimonious left, indeed.
Not to minimize racism (it makes me want to throw up), but I go with the Hanlon’s Razor approach: Do not attribute to malevolence what can be ascribed to simple incompetence and stupidity. The people preparing the images probably didn’t realize Boehner really IS orange, they probably thought the video equipment had screwed up and they thought they were compensating for that.
With respect to the images of President Obama, are there any showing him as darker without text on his face? When I’m preparing images with white text in the foreground, I routinely darken the image to make the white text more readable, no matter what color the image is.
Again, I’m not trying to say racism does not exist, it does, and I’m not saying that there isn’t racism being displayed by the left (we already know the right is racist). I’m just saying that sometimes, especially when doing image comparisons like this, it’s not necessarily racism.
my occam’s razor theory comes down on the other side. elle did it with gabourey sidibe. i remember fox news doing it with obama during the 2008 elections. they (newsweek, i think) did it with that terrorist guy a few years back.
but as betty said, there’s no excuse.
thanks for commenting!
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2010/12/07/this_modern_world
Tom Tomorrow: picking on the black man.
from that post:
“And we always thought black guys had big dicks. And what’s this talk that Obama’s such a good poker player? I remember when the thinking was the GOP is playing checkers but Obama’s playing chess; it looks more like the GOPers are playing checkers but Obama’s playing go fish (unless he’s playing some Jedi mind trick on us all–but that’s looking a little unlikely now). On the plus side (snark), I guess no one can call Obama a socialist anymore.”
so classy.
The real story is in the approval ratings cited above — Democrats: 82/12. Once again, the hoppin’ mad mistake the echos of their own squeals within the chamber for the sound of an angry mob. Not so much.
@Jack — I’m in the business too (copy side rather than graphics), and while you’re right about how designers manipulate images to improve readability, a competent creative director (or whomever) will review the overall effect for just such unintended messages.
I’d rather believe they’re dumbasses rather than dogwhistlers, but the jury is out as far as I’m concerned. Either way, there’s no excuse.
All I wanted was a good person for President. We got one and look how everyone is behaving. We deserve John (I’ll fuck any dog you want me to.) McCain.
Those ties all look very different to me. I guess I’m more confused by the explanation…he looks lighter/whiter in the photo in the middle than on the right, or at least more contrasty and less saturated. Maybe you’re saying he’s darker around the eyes and such…but that contrast (and saturation) CAN just happen because everything from the lighting to the camera to the encoding to the screen it’s displayed on, and everything in between can affect contrast…if you’re indeed speaking of contrast, the only way to tell for sure would be to get digital copies of the original clip and the clip aired, side-by-side.
Sorry, I’m in agreement with the rest of what you said, and even would agree the contrast makes him look much worse than he does in real life (and by that I do NOT mean darker looks worse, I just mean the additional contrast and low saturation), and hell I’d even agree the darkening has occurred blatantly before such as with OJ… But you’re arguing it was intentionally done, except I’m not even sure what “it” is because the far right sure looks darkest to me while the highlights and lighter midtones of the leftmost two are somewhat comparable.
this is very much on point. thank you for posting it.
Just got registered. I love this site. Woot woot.
Off topic, but registrations are difficult and stressful for me. So I thought I would share.
I should have read this piece here in peace and joy at this website rather than at Balloon Juice where they are mostly deeply DEEPLY in denial that white liberals could EVER be bigots (“but….but….I went to a Common concert!”). What a cluster of f*ck that whole comment string was. But it was an epic string. What, 450 comments and counting?
welcome, weezie! it’s insanity over there. my greenwald post was even insanitizier.
someone actually threw out “but jesse jackson doesn’t like [insert whatever] either!”
i almost choked laughing.
Ha ha!!!! When all else fails, trot out Jesse Jackson.
The best is when they trot out some obscure “editorial” written by some obscure black guy: “Yeah, but this piece by Thaddeus X. Glover agrees with me that Obama is an incompetent idiot. What? You don’t know who Thaddeus is? I thought you all knew each other! This proves that you are out of touch, and I am right. Stupid Obot.”
Am I over the moon in love with everything Obama has/hasn’t done with his Magic President wand? No.
Do i think he needs to go? No.
Do i think that those who DO think he needs to go are going to find (and AGREE on ) a suitable replacement? FUCK NO.
As you so ably pointed out earlier, they can’t even get out a cohesive message, much less find someone to be the poster child for it.
Go ahead, douchebags, primary him.
And when you wind up with President Bachmann and all your gay friends are sent off to prison when the Repub majority criminalizes homosexuality, when women are being prosecuted for having miscarriages, when unions are outlawed, when proof of a particular faith becomes a requirement to vote, and when the Supreme Court starts sporting corporate logos on their robes, keep your damn traps shut and fuck yourselves five ways to Friday, thank you very much.
People who foolishly cut off their nose to spite a Republican’s laughing face are part of the idiocracy problem and need to just go away.