Obama strategy: humor

OK, here's the thing. I think Obama has let the Clintons really get under his skin, and it's beginning to affect the way he comes across with the press. He's starting to sound a little peeved and paranoid.

Now, firstly, let me say he's got plenty to be paranoid about. Frankly, he's being double-teamed by two masters of the scorched earth style, people who are seen as the natural heirs to Rove.

He's also got the odds stacked against him. As Mark Kleiman says:

The basic fact of the contest is that if it becomes racial, Obama loses, while if it becomes gendered, HRC wins. It would have required patriotism, decency, and attention to the paramount goal of beating the Republicans for the Clintons to refrain from playing the race card. Apparently those qualities are in short supply.

The Obama campaign should have seen this coming...

Still, that's not the point of this diary. Instead, I wanted to talk about one way he could squirrel a way out of this.

In all of the debates, Obama has always showed that he's got a wry sense of humor. Remember the "I look forward to having you as one of my advisors?" crack. Or "I'll have to investigate his dancing before I can say whether he is in fact a brother".

Those moments really can humanize him. And unlike Hillary's tears, he can go to that well again and again. So why doesn't he?

I'm thinking here of the way Reagan won the press over with his witticisms. Sure, the guy was an SOB, but when I saw him crack a joke, even I liked him, however briefly. And on the campaign trail, he could afford to be funny while having a really vicious team backing him up.

Why doesn't Obama do that? Carry on with the sharp campaign, but be more effusive in his moments with the press. Get in some digs at the Clintons, but do it in a funny way. That would get the point across while still allowing him to retain his hope/unity message.

Why hasn't he done this?

I suspect it's because Hillary really has got under his skin. We saw flashes of in the last debate, but his recent remarks about how Obama supporters might not vote for Hillary is just off the wall crazy. I know I'll vote for her in November -- and then go right back to disliking her.

Anyway, someone needs to tell the O-man to chill it out. Regain his cool, get back his mojo. Crack a joke. Smile at Hillary. Practise the art of the backhanded compliment. The press really eats that stuff up.

•  Bill Clinton is feeding into this

  Race vs Gender in his comments yesterday.

  by Drdemocrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:48:42 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    He is the kungfu master of the Nine Goads. Of course it's deliberate the way he and Hillary and constantly needling Obama. But Obama shouldn't complain about it (after all, he'd get it from the Republicans) -- he should just laugh it off.

    They used to call Reagan the Teflon man. Obama needs to take up the mantle.

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:51:35 AM PDT

  •  Respectfully, Obama took the initiative

    in starting the campaigning down the road it's on now in South Carolina months ago by insisting on using Donnie McClurkin there.

    It was also Obama's campaign who took Hillary's simple statement acknowledging the roles both MLK and Lyndon Johnson played in overcoming the racial divide and blew them all out of proportion.

    And, it's costing him some support there even among African Americans now:

    Reuters/Zogby Poll: Obama's Lead Slips in South Carolina

    Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in South Carolina has shrunk by four points overall and by nine points among black voters, during the last 24 hours of polling, but he retains a sizable edge, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby survey shows.

    Obama in in front with 39% support from likely Democratic voters, followed by Clinton at 24% and John Edwards at 19%.

    Key finding: "Obama still has a healthy lead among African American voters, but lost almost nine points since yesterday, dropping from 65% to 56% support among that group. Edwards, who registered no support from black voters the day before, picked up five points and Clinton added about two points to reach 18% of black support."

    http://www.zogby.com/...

    by phoenixdreamz on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:02:48 AM PDT

    •  Are you spamming?

      This comment is popping up a lot...

      That is troll worthy.

      by nisleib on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:55:09 AM PDT

      •  I don't play games

        and leave that to the real trolls. Knock yourself out.

        by phoenixdreamz on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:14:24 AM PDT

•  Why do you love Ronald Reagan?

  :-)

  by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:50:26 AM PDT

  •  Because he taught me how to annoy liberals

    o_0

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:52:46 AM PDT

    •  Annoying liberals is too easy in many cases....

      ...Of all the things most of us can be accused of, thick skins doesn't usually top the list of things coming to mind, especially during primary season.

      by Ericwmr on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:08:30 AM PDT

•  There really isn't a way out.

  You can't stop being black, trust me on this. You can stop being a man, but this is a far more interesting procedure that I don't Michelle would approve of.

  What Obama should do is concede that this presidential race isn't going to work out, and instead focus on helping more Democrats get elected to Congress.

  As to if she can win over his voters, a big chunk of them probably not. Many were attracted to the Democratic party because of HIM, and not some great burst of love for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans who support him will probably go home, and so will many of the independents. Young people will more often than not just go back to being young people.

  Still, he can do a lot of great work in red states getting Democrats elected in tough districts.

  by brooklynbadboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:51:52 AM PDT

  •  Er ... this isn't helpful

    but thanks for your "advice"

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:54:26 AM PDT

    •  Anytime.

      by brooklynbadboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:58:16 AM PDT

  •  Sadly I have to agree.

    What Obama should do is concede that this presidential race isn't going to work out, and instead focus on helping more Democrats get elected to Congress.

    I tend to agree although it disappoints me to do so.
    I think he could possibly win as a FIGHTING Dem, but not as an emasculated one - which is what a unilateral pledge to niceness and positivity does to you.

    He might also read a speech to the public painfully anouncing his decision to abandon his Mr. Positive persona, ie. I truly regret that I too must get down in the ditch, my fellow Americans...  lol

    If he finds it too painful or scary to go head to head with Bill Clinton (because that IS who he's fighting) and publicly call him out as a liar, or trade blows about having a temporarily disbarred lawyer and outright perjurer in the White House, then he can forget about winning.  Bill simply won't allow him to.

    by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:42:04 AM PDT

•  Ok, I'll say this

  In my opinion, O is still learning how to campaign on a national stage.

  Too often, he speaks as an intellectual might speak to another intellectual.  Personally, I enjoy that, but it sure leaves him wide open to misinterpretation, both of the unintentional kind "oh, did he really say THAT?" and the deliberate kind (that is political opponents use against him).

  In debates, he sometimes gets hung up trying to be too accurate (putting in qualifiers that one might in an academic setting) and tries to refute everything that is thrown against him.

  So, while I am enjoying his campaign and working for it, I see this as his "rookie season" so to speak.  I sure hope he wins and he is doing well, but the odds are heavily stacked against him.

  by onanyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:52:08 AM PDT

  •  Yea, I guess he's still young

    He could come back in, what, 2016. He'd be 54 then, which isn't too old. But, he'd have lost a big part of his draw.

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:56:27 AM PDT

    •  Win or lose now, Obama wins

      Win or lose, Obama comes out of this primary season as something of a winner. Coming up short after a surprisingly good fight against the Clinton machine is nothing to sniff at, and he automatically becomes the de-facto front runner for the next race if Clinton loses, chooses one term, or tuned out to be a lousy president.  Meanwhile, Obama remains in the senate at 47 years old, and with job security on par with Ted Kennedy.  Like him or not, Barack Obama is unlikely to go anywhere unless he leaves on Barack Obama's terms.  

      While he wouldn't be the "new" face in 2016, I disagree on the notion this means he's automatically lost his draw. What he did between now and then could have a tremendous influence on that "draw power," and the additional experience might actually increase the draw by making him more acceptable to those who currently oppose him solely on his relative youth and short time in the Senate.

      The Bloomberg poll cited this morning reports that 3/5 of Clinton supporters want Obama to be the running mate if Clinton becomes the nominee. To me, this largely says that people aren't voting against Obama so much as they are voting for Clinton.  (Which Clinton...that's a very worthwhile question.) Whether his true opponent is Hillary, Bill, or all the above, anyone who makes the Clinton machine work for the nomination is likely to be judged kindly when Democrats consider future presidential prospects. (unless, of course...Eliot Spitzer doesn't have to start thinking apout a Senate vacancy.)

      by Ericwmr on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:25:03 AM PDT

      •  nice analysis! n/t

        by onanyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:27:47 AM PDT

•  He's already using humor on the stump

  in South Carolina.

  by slinkerwink on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:55:22 AM PDT

  •  I meant with reporters

    It's the news stories that will net him wider coverage. Right now the media narrative is that here is is one really pissed black dude. He's said some pretty ungracious things.

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:58:05 AM PDT

•  Lurleen Clinton not running in the Jim Crow South

  And Bills comments this morning are nto funny.  The admission by Bill Clinton that he finds the division of the country on race and gender lines as natural is way to much to require anyone to accept.  The war is still too important an issue for me to squander a vote against it AT THIS POINT.  But It will be very hard for me to pull a lever for someone who has recently tryed to race bait.  I would not condemn people who couldn't keep from avoiding the ballot box or voting third party in these circumstances.  Neither can you.  The Clinton's are losing general election support  in their current way too far back notalgia trip.  I will spend my efforts on Congressional races if Hillary Wallace wins the nomination.  I am not exagerating.  Bills acceptance of an electorate divided by race is too much to ask people to boost this morning.

  by SmithsLastWord on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:57:05 AM PDT

  •  I tend to agree

    Playing to people's baser emotions is not what I thought the Democratic Party stood for.

    Still, I think I'll leave a decision on whether I'd vote for Hillary until November.

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:00:10 AM PDT

•  Remind the Voters

  The next time Charming Billy wields the knife, Obama should simply remind one and all from whom the jibe comes from as far as any truth is concerned and move on..

  by Herron Maine on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:01:37 AM PDT

•  This diary is B.S. There is no evidence that

  Clinton is getting under Obama's skin.  Please do not come up with the ABC report of Obama being "testy" with the NYT's Zeleny.  That story has been thoroughly debunked.

  Obama statement re: people who support him  is not crazy, it is the truth.

  And no the diary has not gotten under my skin.

  by pwr2thepeople on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:04:00 AM PDT

  •  Clinton got under my skin

    This morning.  But he wants to do that.  It's hard nto to be antagonized by someone bent on doing just that.  Bill explicitly endorsed voting on racial and gender lines this morning.  I just hope they lose more than ever this morning.  worst of all is the sinking feeling that Ms Clintons 'victory' won this way will be the last atempt by either people of color or women to acheive the office for a long number of decades.  This election is certainly not something palatable.  Who will want to relive this monstrosity again.  The first woman President proving once again that people of color are only people of color - first and last - to enough voters as her admission to office?  This is shaping up to be my least favorite election in history.

    by SmithsLastWord on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:18:43 AM PDT

  •  I know about the ABC thing

    and wasn't thinking about that. I was thinking about his debate performance, the impression that he's gunning for Bill Clinton in a very barbed way. Nothing wrong with having a go at the big dog, I just happent to think he should do it with a wink and a laugh.

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:19:45 AM PDT

    •  I appreciate your point.

      I don't mind "barbed" if it counters lies, as Obama did.  I agree that humor is always a good counterpunch.  Obama in his stump speeches is very funny about Hillary's and Edwards' response to question of "what's your greatest weakness," and Hillary's answer that "I voted for the bankruptcy bill but I am happy it did not past."

      Peace.

      by pwr2thepeople on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:53:26 AM PDT

•  I'd love it if Obama

  got back to his game, and left the angry finger wagging to the Clintons.

  A Will Rogers sytle truthful humor is Barack's strong suit.

  by crystal eyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:09:59 AM PDT

•  my wife and I...

  Have been thinking, "It would be nice to just stay at home instead of voting".
  It's a pain in the ass in my neighborhood, and it's mostly philly suburb republicans anyway.
  I think maybe one of us will vote if Hillary gets the nod... begrudgingly.

  by phillyPete on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:13:21 AM PDT

•  Obama's smile is his best weapon,

  even more than his oratory, I think.  When he smiles, his face is transformed and it just makes you feel good.

  He scowled through the entire last debate.  Hell, I can understand.  He doesn't like engaging or parrying petty horse shit attacks. You have to be a real bully to think this is "the fun part" of politics.  Obama's not, so he does have to compensate.  I agree 100% that humor is his best weapon.

  Why get annoyed about the Reagan/Republican smear?  It is transparently stupid.  The only people taking the Clintons' side on this one are partisan hacks like Taylor Marsh.

  He should have brought the transcript with him, cracked a joke, then read it, then mentioned that Daniel Patrick Moynihan first called the REpublicans "the party of ideas" and that everyone knows what that means.  Then he could have laughingly pulled out of his other pocket that exact quote of Hillary's on Reagan from Brokaw's book saying he "played the balance beautifully" or whatever it is that she said.

  He's got to go into those debates with the attitude that he takes himself and his agenda and his record seriously, but that he does not take Hillary and her running mate Bill seriously.  They are so transparent; he should treat the situation as though he and everyone else in America is in on the big joke about the Clintons.  Not by saying that, but by acting like it.

  I couldn't agree with you more.

  And he needs to tighten up policy question answers and get to the main point first and then fill in the details as time allows.

  by Mother of Zeus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:27:19 AM PDT

  •  Mother of Zeus

    Obama's smile is his best weapon, even more than his oratory, I think.  When he smiles, his face is transformed and it just makes you feel good.

    True, but he cannot count on that carrying him through for the simple reason that Bill Clinton ALSO makes many people just feel good.

    And Bill can keep the charm going while publicly sliding a knife into people's ribs.  LOL  Recall the Sista Soulja crap from the 90s.

    Obama, on the other hand, is just learning how to fight.  What his critics were saying last year about him not having any fight in him, and how he'd never been tested, seem to be true.  

    I'm a bit dismayed; I actually believed the rhetoric about him being tough... from the Chicago streets... and so on.

    by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:28:12 AM PDT

•  Something like

  Don't let anyone tell you running for President is easy! Keeping up with the Bill and Hillary tag team is exhausting. They're wearing me out!

  I only wish the Clintons had fought this hard for Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry when they could have used their help.

  by BudP on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:30:27 AM PDT

  •  Well, Gore mostly ran away from Clinton

    There's little coincidence that the first "Democrat" to openly condemn Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal ended up becoming Al Gore's running mate.  At that time, "Clinton fatigue" was as commonly uttered as  "change" has been in this primary.  At least in Gore's case, it seemed then and now, to me at least, that Clinton's low degree of active support was a decision made more by Gore than by Clinton.

    In Kerry's case though, I completely agree.  The day after the 2004 concession, political cartoonists started taking shots at the Clintons and cracking jokes about Hillary 2008.  Granted Bill's health was an issue for much of this period, but neither Clinton seemed extremely interested in using their considerable influence for the good of the party in that election.

    by Ericwmr on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:48:58 AM PDT

•  i don't think it's crazy to say that

  there are Obama supporters who won't vote for Hillary.  There are plenty of people (mainly men that i know of) that would love to vote for Obama, but will not vote for Clinton.

  by mos1133 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:31:05 AM PDT

  •  Yep! I am one of 'em! n/t

    by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:18:48 AM PDT

•  Barack needs to take a deep breath and restore

  The stress and fatigue of non-stop campaigning is taking its toll.
  He'd be much more effective if he were not exhausted.

  Barack, take some time out of your schedule and get back in touch with your inner wisdom.  
  When you are relaxed and having fun at the podium, you are irresistible.

  by crystal eyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:31:22 AM PDT

•  Humor and confrontation with racial issues.

  Not only could humor be useful deflecting Clinton criticism, my own opinion is that he ought to get out in front of any possible post SC racial frames now, but do that with a smile and a few jokes as well. Certainly he shouldn't turn the matter into a complete stand-up routine,  but having a Kennedyesque Catholicism speech directed toward all of America (but particularly white america) could do wonders.  Instead of avoiding the race issue and allowing others to potentially use it against him, a preemptive strike might be in order. Obama is often at his rhetorical best when he mixes important points with pointed, even self-depreciating humor.  Maybe promising white people that he doesn't plan to push for reparations or Malcolm X day would help.  Since he's only half black, perhaps a few quips about his own dancing ability are in order.  If he can allay some concerns and make a few jokes that people of every race can chuckle at, he might at least minimize the odds that he's painted as a Jackson or Sharpton caricature. Idealistic rhetoric aside, there is a black America and a white America in all but the most self-consciously progressive quarters.  Completely erasing this divide is unrealistic, but any steps to blur these distinctions, if only in political terms, would do Obama and the country both a great service, regardless of whether it is enough to sway the outcome of this primary.

  by Ericwmr on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:41:44 AM PDT

•  Obama is the....

  look but don't touch candidate.

  Politics is a contact sport.

  by mostest on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:55:43 AM PDT

  •  I agree - I am pro Obama.

    I don't think Team Obama fully appreciated that a presidential race is like NFL football. ;o)

    The Clintons are out to break bones and snap spinal cords.

    by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:13:27 AM PDT

    •  Even more so...

      we (democrats) need a TOUGH and ready to rumble nominee to go against the repubs in the fall.  We have to give as good as we take this go around.  No "being above it all" (see Kerry).  Obama is whining to the refers while his man just scored a lay up at the other end.  We can't play "catch up" this election, the stakes are too high.  

      by mostest on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:07:43 AM PDT

      •  You are right!

        Now, it's true that Clinton will be hard as nails and all that, but it's also true that she is very supportive of numerous right-wing, Republican initiatives.  The worst of them being the War in Iraq.

        So I'm not gonnna count her victory as any kind of "win" for Democrats.  I will record it as the victory of a liberal Republican....

        And this country will stil be as f***ed as when President G.W. Bush was running it.

        by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:17:02 AM PDT

        •  I hear what you are saying...

          and I too have issues with Hillary's Iraq vote as well as kyle lieberman vote.  However, my understanding of her politics is that if she was president she would not have invaded Iraq.  The oil (both Bush and Cheney are oilmen) and contract (hailburton, blackwater,on and on) pressures are not there for her.

          As cold and calculating as it appears, she voted for the Iraq resolution because she was looking at a presidential bid and she wanted to look strong on defense.  I believe that will serve her well in the general because the repubs will not have that "weak on defense" argument because she voted with them.  Also, Obama constantly hammering the fact that she is so hawkish i.e. her Iraq vote and Edwards apologizing for his Iraq vote (that really makes him look weak)they are boosting her strong on defense credentials and she does not have to say a word.  Brillant.

          I want a democrat in the White House and I will vote for whoever our nominee is.

          by mostest on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:35:32 AM PDT

          •  No long term vision

            As cold and calculating as it appears, she voted for the Iraq resolution because she was looking at a presidential bid and she wanted to look strong on defense.  I believe that will serve her well in the general because the repubs will not have that "weak on defense" argument because she voted with them.  

            I understand why she did it - for self-serving careerist reasons.  I just don't consider it intelligent because when you vote in favor of a right-wing Republican initiative to piss away $1 trillion in public funds (projected costs), you are voting to tie your hands up as far as fixing America's social problems.

            This was called "Starve the Beast" in the Reagan era.  You deliberately rack up unsustainable deficit spending for the Dept. of Defense's useless wars and $20 million tanks and $100 million submarines and eventually a drastic financial correction is required, ie. slashing govt. spending or hiking taxes or both.

            When that correction comes later on, it will be given as the excuse for why we "can't afford" universal medical insurance.  Or why we need to slash this or that social program.  And the many thousands of under-insured or non-insured Americans who wind up losing their homes due to medical bankruptcies will have only themselves to blame if they supported the War in Iraq, Bush or Clinton.

            I want a democrat in the White House and I will vote for whoever our nominee is.

            Assuming Hillary is the nominee, you will regret this, but I understand why you're doing it.  

            As Dems, we've been trained this way for a very, very, very LONG time.  I can remember hearing this back in the 1980s before I could even vote - "Whatever we do we HAVE to get a Democrat in there!!!"

            Good luck! ;o)

            by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:58:21 AM PDT

            •  What repub candidate would you support..

              instead of Clinton?  Rudy is bush with  a brain.  One of Rudy's advisors (start with a P) wants war all the time. Huckabee is a hick preacher with no brain and Romney is whoever you want him to be.
              If I was chosing the repub nominee, it would be McCain. But, he is very pro Iraq war all the time for "100 years."

              So where does that leave us?  

              On a technical note, Hillary voted for the resolution not the war.  I know, I know.. every one knew what Bush was going to do.  However, do you believe Hillary would have voted for more time for the inspectors/negoitations or head straight into war?

              Assuming Hillary is the nominee, you will regret this, but I understand why you're doing it.  

              Why do you say this?  Two things I can honesty not understand: 1) why people are so fanatic about Obama and 2) why people dislike Hillary so much.  

              I have appreciated our conversation and your thoughtful analysis of the issues.  I can respect any info you can provide to help me understand Obamania and Hillhaters.

              by mostest on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:14:22 AM PDT

              •  okay, sure

                Why do you say this?  Two things I can honesty not understand: 1) why people are so fanatic about Obama and 2) why people dislike Hillary so much.  

                I have appreciated our conversation and your thoughtful analysis of the issues.  I can respect any info you can provide to help me understand Obamania and Hillhaters.

                Two reasons as anwers:

                1. People feel, rightly or not, that Obama is a transformational leader - one who would turn things upside down relative to the way the Democratic Party operates today.  Bring in millions of folks who previously felt politics was useless, or who hated Democrats.  This is based on the man's record in Illinois.  If you know nothing about his work before he became nationally famous you won't get it.

                2. Hillary is disliked for many reasons.  Some people surely are sexist/misogynist.  I am not though; I detest her for her corruption; for what I feel is her racism (I have quotes to prove it); and her incompetence (Iraq War).

                by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:06:11 AM PDT

                •  This is where we part ways..

                  I believe Obama is not transformational. Obama is getting independence because 1) he really is not a democratic -- he does not have rock solid democrat principles 2) independence are for him because Hill has been so demonized.  I believe alot of it is sexism disguised as "polarizing, cold, calculating." We know why the repubs are supporting him now but will they in the general....come on now!

                  The democratic party does not need transformation, they need a winner not a whinner.  

                  by mostest on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:12:27 AM PDT

•  Plum, nice diary! But...

  But your poll is a bit too rigid.

  You offered us

  A)

  B)

  C)

  But it's really more complicated.
  I voted for a) and believe it's a powerful choice but believe that c) can be used as well.  He can alternate between light-hearted playful, cheerful comebacks and delivering a blow to the jaw now and then.

  As of right now, I'm psychologically preparing for Obama to win SC handily and pretty much sputter through everything else, always coming right behind Clinton.  Hopefully I'm wrong.

  I've always been puzzled/wary/skeptical about Obama's concept of winning an election based on organizational smarts, charisma, moral clarity and sheer niceness or positivity.  It's a great idea in theory but it requires that your opponents go along with the program.  The Clintons are NOT gonna go along, and I think Obama was naively caught off guard.

  To make it clearer, let me try to use a Civil Rights analogy:  Dr. King's spirit of non-violent resistance to evil required at least 3 things.

  a) A free press interested in covering that resistance, and a public that heeds that free press

  b) A broader society with a moral conscience

  c) Security forces [the enemy] with a certain moral conscience

  Absent any one of the 3 elements above, the Civil Rights Movement would've collapsed in complete disarray and failed.

  How do we know?  From looking at political protest in less developed nations.

  In countries like Mexico or Indonesia where (c) doesn't apply and security forces have NO moral conscience, Dr. King and all of his key followers would have been lined up against a wall and machine-gunned as a lesson to the others.  If protest continued, then another batch of 50 or 70 protesters might be massacred and so on.

  In countries like South Africa where (b) didn't apply and the broader white society that benefited from membership in the ruling class often didn't have any moral qualms about black suffering, protesters went through hell.  In South Africa, black protesters being massacred in streets and townships across the country was easily rationalized as putting down Marxist-Leninist Communist insurrection or some such nonsense.  Many whites were also absolutely terrified at the thought of being ruled by black "savages."  Many black protest leaders fled abroad.  The white public also lacked (a).  There was no free press to really understand just how bad things were.  

  As far as Obama goes, I think the equivalent of (c) is missing.  The Clintons and their surrogates are the ones directly impeding Obama's path to the White House and engaging him in rhetorical combat.  Strategy-wise this makes them analogous to folks like the Alabama State Troopers who squared off against Dr. King.  Unlike with the troopers of the 1960s, however, there is no moral conscience at work here.  "Whatever it takes!" is the name of the game.  They are utterly ruthless.

  Under the latter conditions, it's really, really, really hard to win against The Forces of Darkness when you've taken a vow of non-violence (Hope; Positivity; No negative campaigning).

  I still love Obama and hope he can somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat... somehow.

  by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:10:11 AM PDT

  •  Great comment

    Very thought-provoking. Thanks ^^

    by plum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:03:33 PM PDT

•  funny black man, crack a joke

  the black man always has to resort to using comedy to tell truths too ugly to deliver straightforward, that's why our best and most influential social commentators on race are comedians (pryor, chappelle, rock).

  but yeah, barack does have a winning sense of humor, especially when he's being self-deprecating...that "kid with the big ears and funny name" during his DNC speech helped immensely. he's always great on daytime talk shows. very relaxed and natural. not creepy, competitive funny like mccain. i agree that he does need to relax and be himself, part of which is being a funny guy, but i cringe at the notion that a black man has to make people laugh in order to get people to take him seriously. that is the way it is. hope you understand.

  by missreporter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:56:43 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    but i cringe at the notion that a black man has to make people laugh in order to get people to take him seriously. that is the way it is. hope you understand.

    From my own perspective, missreporter, I understand you perfectly.

    And I cringe as well, because the examples you cite like Chappelle, are the very people who are wealthy and successful but whom AREN'T taken seriously or looked to for leadership, whether in the black community or mainstream America.

    Nobody expects Bill Cosby to have any serious effect on Africa-American literacy or K-12 education OR problems facing Americans in general.

    by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:41:05 AM PDT