"President of OUR country?!?"

I'd like to share this personal account from Undemocracy of tonight's exchange between Pat Buchanan and Joe Madison on Hardball.  It made my stomach sink as I read it, and I want as many others as possible to see exactly what transpired.

Tonight on Hardball, Pat Buchanan and Joe Madison mixed it up about the significance of Rev. Wright and the impact of the Obama speech. They actually seemed personally angry with each other about this.

Pat praised Obama’s speech, but insisted on angrily - and I mean with personal anger - tarring him with 20 years of sitting in the pews and imbibing racism and anti-Americanism without protest, without walking out on Wright.

Pat purported to speak for the white male voters of Aliquippa and Johnstown, demanding on their behalf, "Who is this guy who thinks he’s going to be President of our country?"

Don’t look for it on the slice of the discussion MSNBC put on the website. It’s not there. They cut off the discussion just before it got that hot.

The way Buchanan said "our" country, emphasizing that word (thus justifying my italics), on behalf of these white voters, already described as not exactly open on the racial issue, made it a racist insult given sympathetic voice by Pat on their behalf, though in the rush of talking over and shouting down of talk TV nobody called him on it.

My wife, no close student of politics and barely aware of who Buchanan is, immediately looked at me with shock at the way he said that "our country." Oh, my.

It's true: the online MSNBC video cuts off right as Madison and Buchanan begin raising their voices at one another.  These occasional cracks in the armor (and the moments of honesty they produce) are disturbing, though, and MSNBC's exclusion of Pat's "OUR country" moment seems to acknowledge such.

•  Tip jar, though Undemocracy

  deserves the credit for catching the moment.

  by Shem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:08:00 PM PDT

•  Oh gosh...Pat Buchanan is an old white guy...

  They are due to leave the planet soon...their time is just about up here...they have over stayed their welcome..time to move forward..time to move on...

  Numbnuts, John Gibson said on his talk radio program yesterday that racism doesn't exist in America.  He actually said that..and was arguing the point with a young black man who held his own very well, I thought..

  This country is in a state of flux.  It is the market, the blind morons in the White House, the campaign trail..we are all in a state of flux and Pat Buchanan is hell bent on throwing gasoline on the fire...damn him...

  by RubyGal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:09:44 PM PDT

  •  Careful

    While it's temping to throw the blame on the "old white guys," saying that they're "due to leave the planet" or that they have "overstayed their welcome" is just as bigoted as complaining about "uppity women" or "troublesome negros."

    by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:17:43 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but...

      ...when it comes to old white guys, I am a bigot. So I'll second what RubyGal said.

      by Free Spirit on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:22:30 PM PDT

      •  How exactly is that a good thing?

        I've known plenty of nice, old white guys who are nothing like Pat Buchanan. Would you say that all blacks are violent because of OJ Simpson, or that men can't be trusted with children because of certain Catholic priests, or that all Republicans are war veterans because of John McCain?

        But once again: when is it ever good to be proud about being bigoted? What do you think Obama, or even Hillary or McCain, would say about that?

        by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:26:37 PM PDT

        •  It is what it is.

          Good, bad, who knows.

          I ain't all that big on young and middle-aged white guys either. Way I see it, the male character is written all over this f*cked up mess of a planet. I am deeply committed to the idea that the only hope for the human race is for women to wrest power away from them.

          And I like black people better than white people, too. So there.

          by Free Spirit on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:45:17 PM PDT

          •  I should know better than to feed the trolls

            but really, seriously, is that your honest opinion? Without the slightest trollish intent? Because if so, you are a sad, sad student of history (not to mention someone risking extreme divisiveness and raised tempers).

            There have been plenty of female rulers around the world who have been just as terrible and bloodthirsty as the worst men. Women are not, by virtue of their womanness, better or more compassionate rulers. Gonads have little if any influence on decision-making or kindness (for instance, in other cultures, gentleness and compassion have been seen as masculine qualities, while sternness and rigidity are seen as feminine). Testosterone has no "poisoning" effect on reason, cute sound bites and daytime sitcoms or not.

            But if you want to spout proudly your apparent hatred of men on the basis of a bizarre belief that a society ruled by women would be somehow significantly different or more utopian, this white man in particular will be bidding you a "good day."

            by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:00:34 PM PDT

            •  White men are scary..to many people this is true.

              You might not understand this but I purposefully married a Latin man to avoid marrying a white man..my husband and I have not had a bad word in 7 years of marriage..he is the sweetest person I know..

              by RubyGal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:53 PM PDT

              •  Congratulations on your successful marriage

                but I wonder if your lack of argument is because he is Latin or something else.

                Do you really believe that all white men are bad or should be feared? What's given you that inclination if so?

                by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:21:06 PM PDT

                •  All my friends are divorced...

                  Most of my women friends have had their husbands screw them over in divorce..Latin men love family above all else..they are most content when they have a family to love..

                  by RubyGal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:29:31 PM PDT

            •  Who says I hate men?

              Or that I think a society ruled by women would be more utopian? Significantly different...probably. Significantly better, I can't say. But I think it's a pretty good bet that we would be hard pressed to screw it up any more than men have, though.

              by Free Spirit on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:08:09 PM PDT

              •  Undoubtedly, but the question is if you would

                screw it up any less, and particularly, screw it up less by virtue of being female.

                by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:05:32 PM PDT

                •  No way of knowing

                  I'm inclined to think we would screw it up differently than men have. "More" or "less" probably doesn't have an absolute answer. Probably an individual judgment call, depending on what kind of screwing up bothers you more or less.

                  by Free Spirit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:59:46 PM PDT

        •  I am old white guy

          I'm not leaving the planet soon, I'm planning on living out another twenty years of my life expectancy.

          Although I don't share Buchanan's bigotry, after living in the rural South, I can certainly understand it.  A lot of old white guys have been trod on, by rich white guys mainly, but they have seen their circumstances substantially reduced over their life times.  In their eyes, the gains of others have come at their expense.   They are full of resentment, though its directed at the wrong people generally.

          What we need to do is gently redirect that resentment toward positive action.

          by MadScientist on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM PDT

          •  Exactly. I'm not even arguing

            that there aren't bigoted old white guys. I just think it's incredibly dangerous to start throwing those kinds of words around, especially in the wake of Obama's encouragement of racial healing (not reinvigorating the old stereotypes).

            Handy rule-of-thumb: if changing the operative nouns out makes you think twice, you should probably examine your thoughts. Ridding the world of "poor Chinese people" or "young black women" doesn't sound nearly so easy to advocate, I bet. (This is for the general reader "you," of course.)

            by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:03:46 PM PDT

          •  My personal theory...

            The primary purpose of the two major parties is to keep working class whites and working class blacks at each other's throats.

            by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:39:00 PM PDT

        •  I usually say this about Kissinger and David

          Rockefeller...old white guys who won't go away..who have been the cause of such pain and sadness in the world..who have insisted on being in charge of the planet and that harming women, children and dogs is nothing to them...those are the old white guys I refer to...those who lump women, children and dogs in the same category..

          by RubyGal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM PDT

          •  Yes, they are terrible,

            but again, does lumping all the "old white guys" into their category make you any better?

            by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:05:16 PM PDT

            •  I am not claiming that I am better..

              I am saying that these old white guys have harmed the planet..men have given themselves power and control over this planet and are ruining it.  Who knows what devious plans these old white guys have..Cheney certainly fooled Republicans didn't he..the media labeled him as having gravitas..he is a damn depraved soul..and in charge of our futures at the moment..not a happy thought..

              by RubyGal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:10:47 PM PDT

              •  I understand what you mean

                but the thing that makes me uncomfortable is the seeming assumption that this is a function of the leaders being male, and not merely a function of their being morally bankrupt and singularly powerful.

                As merely one example, ask yourself if Condoleezza Rice, a black woman, has done much to humanize the Bush administration.

                by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:18:40 PM PDT

                •  She is not there to humanize the Bush regime

                  she is there to facilitate the dismantling of our government.  Madeleine Albright was as blood thirsty as Condoleeza Rice..The goal is the same..PNAC wants to use the military to take over the world..Bill Kristol, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, Kagan, etc. etc..Madeleine Albright signed a PNAC letter..

                  by RubyGal on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:27:38 PM PDT

•  I'm really struggling with all of this

  I have family and friends who now believe that Barack Obama hates this country and hates white people. My family and friends are very dear to me, I want to show them that they've been mistaken/misled, but I don't know how to negate the impact of video "evidence" (whether it be Michelle or Wright). It's powerful stuff, I'm dealing with gullible people, and I just don't have the antidote. It's hurting me. What do I do?

  by Ivey476 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM PDT

  •  What about Obama's speech

    and Jon Stewart's line that he spoke to us about race as if we were adults

    by latinadem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:11:43 PM PDT

  •  I have a family member who think W hung

    the moon, that Nixon was railroaded out of office. You might as well face it:  some people you can't change.  Many think Obama's magic of yesterday was 'just another speech.' Those people will never understand, and no amount of talking -- however persuasive -- will change them. Go drink a cold one and concentrate on getting him elected. Peace, brother.

    by phrogge prince on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:16 PM PDT

    •  I think that's where I'm at

      It's just so damn frustrating because I know these people so well and they're so much smarter than this. But you hear what you want to hear. Thanks prince, I think that's what I'll do. Feel free to join me....

      by Ivey476 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:26:01 PM PDT

    •  I think we are concerned because

      we are trying to get him elected, one vote at a time. Changing one mind at a time. I was able to do that, and now, I need some help. I feel, if I can not convince my husband, then I will not be able to convince anyone else.

      by Vera Lofaro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM PDT

  •  You could try talking honestly

    about why you support Obama, and how the media have unfairly portrayed the Wright issue. Even if it doesn't seem like it has any effect, every little bit helps, and you never know if your words might lead them to think or act a little differently somewhere down the line. Good luck.

    by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:21:41 PM PDT

  •  Same thing is going on with me,

    My husband was going to vote for Obama as far back as last Tuesday. After seeing these videos, he says, he can never vote for him now. Let me tell you, my husband takes his Christian faith very seriously, and there was much in those video clips that offended him on that level. Yes he was also offended by the 9/11 comments and the perceived racism against white people. He was voting Obama because he was voting for change, he hates the Clintons, and doesn't like McCain either, he thinks they are what is wrong with our government, he is anti-corporation, anti-politician. He felt Obama was different, not like the average Washington type. He also was so pro-Obama because he adored Michelle, he was put off by her remark about the first time she was proud of her country. I managed to explain that away, but with these video clips being run over and over, it is not as easy. He says he has seen Obama's speech, yet I don't believe he did, he didn't see it with me, and I am sure he didn't hear it in it's entirety. I keep telling him you shouldn't judge someone by these sensationalized video clips. I also tell him, if he heard the same sermon, knew the good the church does for the people in the community, he might feel differently. When I feel like I am making progress, he immediately goes to Farrakhan, and how the church Obama belonged to gave him an award. I will vote for Obama, but I think we lost his vote. It is the Farrakhan thing, and those video clips. I need help here too. Aside from Barack Obama coming to my house and personally explaining this to him, I think I can not get him back.
    Not a bad idea, perhaps in PA, rather than have those big gala events, Barack Obama should go to small gatherings in private homes, and talk directly to the people of PA. like the candidates do in New Hampshire in the beginning. I think one on one, he could be a lot more convincing. I know that would work on my husband, and it is votes such as his he is losing.

    by Vera Lofaro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:26:50 PM PDT

    •  Unfortunately,

      Rev. Wright's comments require context to be seen as something other than anti-American or anti-white. The context of a different cultural American experience and a different way of expressing one's self. This context cannot be provided in a snappy soundbite like Wright's comments can. Obama tried to provide some of this context in his speech. There have also been some wonderful diaries on this site which do an excellent job of providing a little context as well here, here, here, and here  

      I would recommend reading these diaries and hopefully then you might better be able to explain Wright's comments and Barack Obama. Good luck.

      by CalexanderJ on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:20:21 PM PDT

    •  What if you offered to sit down

      and watch the whole speech with him?

      by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:45:12 PM PDT

      •  I tried, but he keeps saying he

        has seen it. I am starting to feel like, it is not about Obama at all, it is about him doubting his own judgment. This is a man who voted twice for Bush, the first time he was enthusiastic, the second time, he just disliked Kerry. He also voted the first term for Clinton. Not a very good track record when it comes to picking a President. In some respects I can understand his disappointment, it is much like the disappointment I am feeling about Spitzer, sort of like he is not really the person I thought he was. I think he is just questioning. He seems to be more angry than anything else, angry that Obama could be and could stay associated with someone who it appears to speak hate talk. As I said before, right now, anything short of Barack himself trying to convince him, isn't going to work. Time heals, and as long as Hillary does not get the nomination, we have time to heal these wounds.

        by Vera Lofaro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:19 AM PDT

•  For the record,

  Pat Buchanan doesn't speak for this white male voter!

  by Nick A on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:13:53 PM PDT

•  Pat Buchanan is not a racist....oops

  The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance. How long is this endless groveling before every cry of "racism" going to continue before the whole country collectively throws up?-- Pat Buchanan, accusing someone of "putting on an act" by associating the Confederacy with slavery, July 28, 1993, quoted from Political Amazon's "Quotes from Hell"

  There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The "negroes" of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.-- Pat Buchanan, when discussing race relations in the 1950s, in Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, quoted from Political Amazon's "Quotes from Hell"

  [For President Nixon to visit King's widow on the anniversary of King's assassination because it would] outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history.
  -- Pat Buchanan, while working as a White House adviser to Nixon, reported in the New York Daily News, October 1, 1990, quoted from Political Amazon's "Quotes from Hell"

  Take a hard look at [KKK leader David] Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks.
  -- Pat Buchanan, February 25, 1989, quoted from Political Amazon's "Quotes from Hell"

  by rickrocket on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:26 PM PDT

  •  For what its worth

    My high school history teacher was a black man who taught me that the state-approved history book was bullshit, that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but economics, that the North was largely as bigoted as the South, and he pointed out correctly, that the Emancipation Proclamation came halfway through the Civil War.  This, he said, was just an effort to further weaken the South economically rather than any concern for the welfare or freedom of blacks.

    So there are differences of opinion still.

    by MadScientist on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:55:41 PM PDT

    •  you are right

      and Lincoln freed the slaves because it was politically expedient and destabilized the South's revenue source.  The South only wanted slaves so they could continue to make a maximum profit in agriculture, much like why we don't want to enforce our immigration laws now.

      Usually, things aren't done for ideals or compassion.  Follow the money and you will find the basis for most behaviors.

      by rickrocket on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:02:36 PM PDT

•  Such a Typical Conservative POV

  "Our" instead of "All of Our." Exclusivity rather than INclusiveness. 'You can only belong to our club if you play by our definition of the rules.'

  More and more, I see Conservatives and Fundamentalist as deeply frightened people, so very much afraid that they must kill the messenger and constantly expend their energies on denial.

  Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw:

  <CENTER> "Okay: I Evolved; You Didn't"</CENTER>

  by Uthaclena on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:29 PM PDT

  •  I think lots of them really haven't evolved n/t

    by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    I think we alienate them almost as much as they alienate us.  For example, we have removed Christmas from our schools and society for fear of offending someone who isn't Christian.  I am not a Christian and I am offended by this practice.  What we should be doing is celebrating all the religious holidays for all the religions of the children at the school.  That way our children can learn that they have nothing to fear from people who are different from them.  They will learn the cultures of other nations and benefit from that knowledge of how people from other countries think.  Religion is important to most people, and suppressing it is a sure-fire way to cause devisiveness.  

    We have to embrace our conservative brothers and let them know that we aren't trying to take anything from them.  We are just trying to stop them from taking America from ALL Americans.

    by rickrocket on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:46:13 PM PDT

    •  We Need to Achieve Some Difficult Compromises

      There is a legitimate concern at both ends of the political spectrum that as soon as you start compromising, you're riding down the Slippery Slope. But, whether we like it, or disagree, our opponents are also Americans whom we have to tolerate dissonant cultural beliefs.

      I agree with you that we need to celebrate our multi-cultural nation and each's traditions, as long as they are not allowed to become pre-eminent over any others (admittedly a difficult trick). I have wondered if a reasonable way to discuss religion in schools is by a social studies/community studies, whatever, curriculum of comparative religions geared to different grade levels. Give people exposure to commonalities as well as differences. Include secularity/no-religion in the mix.

      Difficult? Sure. Impossible? Dunno. But we need to end the Culture Wars in some manner other than one side beating down the other.

      by Uthaclena on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:25:10 PM PDT

•  I would ask further

  why MSNBC is trying to protect Buchanan from the heat he should rightfully receive for that remark. He's shown himself to be a bigoted idiot in the past, so it's not like they could be attacked for portraying him unfairly (hell, he'd probably take it as a compliment anyway).

  by liberate on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:15:06 PM PDT

•  more gems from Pat Buchanan..

  they should reject and renounce him.....

  Like all idolatries, democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process for a love of country.-- Pat Buchanan, 1990, quoted from Political Amazon's "Quotes from Hell"

  You just wait until 1996, then you'll see a real right-wing tyrant.-- Pat Buchanan, just before he announced his candidacy for the 1996 presidential election in 1995, quoted from Political Amazon's "Quotes from Hell"

  by rickrocket on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:16:45 PM PDT