Prominent Obama Supporter Calls Black Skepticism "Slave Mentality"

Comments (94)

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:40 PM:

i don't really see how this is a headache for obama

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:42 PM:

Eric.... respectfully...

STFU

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 16, 2008 11:48 PM:

Obama ran when he ran. It is good that he did and is. Hell, I am not not a supportter and I am glad he did and is.

It is crapppy that he spouts right wing talking points. That's a fucking shame. He spends time vying for the Kaiser side of the Democratic Party with the great and grand GOP godess and Goldwater Gal, Clinton AND that is shameful.

But it is good that he is in the race.

Common Sense wrote on January 16, 2008 11:50 PM:

I think someone already misses the flare up from last week. Seriously, the last line pretty means that this is a non-event.

lampwick wrote on January 16, 2008 11:51 PM:

Andrew Sullivan is also a prominent Obama supporter, who keeps writing about porn.

Shall we foist that sin upon Obama's head as well?

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 11:53 PM:

I don't see as to how this can be a problem. Besides, who says we can't talk about racial differences anyway? We have the first viable black and female candidate running for office. If we aren't able to talk about race and gender, when will be the time? This fear that we aren't able to intelligently talk about differences in perspective based on cultural, gender, and racial dynamics is in itself racist and bigoted.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:54 PM:

I agree with the Rev. It is a fact that some blacks maintain an attitude that you can only trace as a slave mentality - and I don't think there needs to be recognition in the black community about why some of us think the way we do. i.e. black hair, complexion

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:55 PM:

Eric,

You are in no position to be questioning a civil rights leader as prominent and accomplished as Mr. Lowery when he makes a statement such as this.

Here's the thing. What he says may in fact be true. Here's the other thing. He, as a prominent and respected black leader, is allowed to say this. I would venture to say that while some may disagree with his substantive point, NO well-informed african-american citizen in this country would be offended by his "slavery" reference.

Christ, you quote it as if it were a white politician (or supporter, for that matter) referring to slavery in a context in which it was not clear that he thought it was a *bad* thing. Here, you've got a black man, a famous civil rights leader, in fact, stating his belief that there may be a lingering after-effect of the 300+ years of racial injustice inflicted upon african-americans, a mentality instilled in them (particularly those who came of age before the 60's) -- through pervasive and institutionalized racism -- that not only are they somehow subordinate to whites, but that that is their *proper* place.

He's got every right to say this. And more to the point: you yourself acknowledge how attenuated the connection is btw this speech (not even a political rally of any kind) and the Obama campaign. I would go further. There is *no* connection demonstrated whatsoever.

Shame on you, Eric. If you have any sense of decency you will pull this post down immediately.

Tom wrote on January 16, 2008 11:57 PM:

Why are you publicizing this nonsense? Is this site now turning into Drudge? I thought this was a progressive site, but it looks like it's more committed to stirring up fights between Democrats.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 11:58 PM:

Why are you attacking Eric? He's linking to a story that is circulating around the internet. It's a legitimate news story and Eric is putting it into context. Sheesh. Back down.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:59 PM:

Ugh. Remove this post now. Remove this columnist from TPM now. So tired of this drivel. So very tired of it. Irresponsible. Disgusting.

Sunny wrote on January 17, 2008 12:02 AM:

Yes, people that doubt that a black man can get elected have a "slave mentality." It's a common refrain in the black community about black folks that still think that there are certain things that remain un-attainable for blacks.

jeanba wrote on January 17, 2008 12:02 AM:

Eric,

Seriously as an African-American I say to you STFU. Why do you care what a private citizen say in a private gathering? Nice try, people know where Obama stands on race issues. I see this as another cheap shot from you maybe a hillary supporter trying another race card. Enough of this non-sense.

chaunceyatrest wrote on January 17, 2008 12:03 AM:

Did it come from the Obama campaign? Did he say it at an Obama event? With Obama sharing the stage? Or even in the audience?

Yawn.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:08 AM:

ChrisNBama (??),

Legitimate news story? Good one. It is circulating around the internet, therefore we will post it on the internet? Again, nice tautology. And what context is he providing? The comment that this "might lead to a headache for Obama"? The only fair reading of that is that he's tacitly endorsing the view that there is a "there there" with this thing. And there's just not.

In short, we are attacking this floppy-haired pseudo-journalist because he keeps unfairly attacking a good man whose name rhymes with your handle. Obama has shown an unwillingness to stoop to the level of Hillary and her vast network of hit-man surrogates (Messrs. Sargent and Kleefeld included). And he probably wants his supporters to remain above the fray as well. Against his better judgment, however, some of us are hitting back. Enough is enough.

Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 12:10 AM:

ChrisNBama,

This is not circulating around the internet. The only place I could find this is that AJC blog Eric links to.

Of course, I did find a mention of Lowery saying the same thing 2 weeks ago:
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/v-print/story/211201.html

"Some black folks still have a slave mentality," he said. "Too many of us still think we can't do something just because we're black."

There was no controversy then and there is none now. But for some reason, Eric is trying to make it into one.

Publicus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:11 AM:

But bear in mind that Lowery's remarks were not made at any kind of campaign-sponsored event, but rather were made on his own time at an unrelated venue.

Given this caveat, one think that this isn't a news worthy post outside of Atlanta. One would think.

Gillray wrote on January 17, 2008 12:13 AM:

Respectfully, this is a non-issue. It's not in any sense a problem for Obama.

Debatable assertion about cultural history? Yes. But not a novel one. Not, I think, one that outrages people.

And hey, no one said they would "dial back all of the talk about race and civil rights." They said they would dial back accusations about the other side. Which this isn't.

Dude, if you post this, you're going to have to start posting on every political theory advanced by a sociology prof. who supports Clinton. Give it a rest.

Whit wrote on January 17, 2008 12:14 AM:

America has a real problem in our culture's tendency to accept authority - to accept our "masters," whether as it once was for some by ownership of persons, or as it is now by ownership of "the lion's share" of resources. The slave's mentality isn't far from the new peasant's mind that threatens to facilitate our slide into the Bush-Huckabe dark ages. Obama and Edwards both invite and incite us to rise up. Freedom, taking responsibility for our selves and our nation, can be a jarring change. The slave's mentality, and it's close cousins evident in the "white trash," is more than worthy of the spotlight.

Michael's Mom wrote on January 17, 2008 12:18 AM:

Which campaign shoveled this shit your way, I wonder? I can't imagine TPM has the werewithal to be at every event spoken to by every campaign surrogate, so this can only be a campaign pointing this crap out. Wasn't it TPM criticizing John Solomon, newly of the WashTimes but formerly of the WashPost, for being a soft touch for oppo shops? Have you at TPM decided to get on the soft-touch-for-oppo bandwagon? Really, STFU doesn't quite approach what you should do. How about: STOP SHILLING LEFT AND RIGHT FOR ANY CAMPAIGN OPPO SHOP, PERIOD!

BillB wrote on January 17, 2008 12:20 AM:

The Las Vegas Sun takes on Bill Clinton's fuzzy (some might say "retarded") math behind his freak-out over the caucus sites on the Strip.

I love it when lying pols get indignant about defending their lies. Great for the Dem brand, no?

Bill and the counting game
By David McGrath Schwartz · January 16, 2008 · 6:44 PM

President Bill Clinton today stepped up his attack on at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas Strip, telling reporters in Oakland that people who caucus at those locations would have votes “worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct.”

Is that right? Yes, mathematically, it is possible. In fact, the imbalance could be worse.

But it is also mathematically possible – and more likely - - that a caucus-goer in regular precincts off the Strip would have their support count for more than those on the Strip.

The calculations are highly complicated and they all depend on turnout Saturday.

An example:

If 400 people show up at a Strip caucus site on Saturday, under Democratic Party math, those 400 people would get to choose a total of 80 delegates (the number of delegates for an at-large site depends on the size of the turnout at each site.) Under this example, each person’s vote would be worth one-fifth of a delegate.

Now let’s turn to any of the more than 1,700 regular, off-Strip precinct precinct caucuses around the state. The number of delegates for each precinct is determined not by the number of people who turn out on Saturday, but by the number of registered Democrats in that precinct. An example: If a precinct has 400 registered Democrats, under the party’s formula, that precinct’s caucus site would be eligible for eight delegates. If on caucus day, all 400 people show up, they still get to choose a total of eight delegates, which means each person’s vote would be worth one-fiftieth of a delegate, which is far less than the value of a vote on the Strip.

So that makes Clinton’s point. The caucus could give more weight to voters at the Strip sites—which means, largely, the Culinary.

But wait. What if just one person shows up to caucus at that regular precinct site in our example? That person gets to choose all eight delegates.

Who’s got the advantage now?

Andrew wrote on January 17, 2008 12:24 AM:

How would this cause a headache for Obama?

The comment - from a well-respected Civil Rights leader - is only minimally controversial, and is not even a commentary on black Clinton, but rather is a critique of the belief amongst some blacks that a black man cannot be president. That's perfectly valid territory for Rev. Lowery to be exploring.

This really isn't a "story" that needs to be pushed, and I would hope TPM would have the same good sense to see this.

jeanba wrote on January 17, 2008 12:33 AM:

Eric,

If this a story being pushed by Hillary supporters I guarantee you it will backfire, it could be seen as another race card and people are really tired of this sh...t. There are more pressing issues, us going into recession, voting rights, healthcare issues etc. The more this garbage being shown the more it will hurt whoever pushing them.

BA wrote on January 17, 2008 12:40 AM:

I think it is perfectly valid for Eric to point out what Obama's prominent supporters are saying--just as it would be valid for him to point out what prominent supporters of Clinton and Edwards are saying. The comments from people telling Eric to pull the post or STFU make me think some Obama supporters are afraid this might lead to a "Johnson/BET/Clinton" moment for Obama.

onceler wrote on January 17, 2008 12:45 AM:

i am actually offended by this post. this dude has the right to address his own community in any way he damn well pleases, especially in his own private time.

geoff wrote on January 17, 2008 12:47 AM:

Let me venture to say that someone who was an integral and early organizer of the the civil rights movement is beyond reproach by the media or politicians when they resond to a question involving race.

I think this plays very well for Obama as he transitions his campaign into SC after this Saturday's caucus in NV. If Obama can pull out a victory in NV, I think he will most certainly garner a super majority of the african american vote in SC, which will push him way over the top and lead to a double digit victory in that state.

Steve wrote on January 17, 2008 12:51 AM:

I'm a Clinton supporter.

I'm not a big fan of treating every word that comes out of a supporter's mouth as the responsibility of the candidate. Without even getting into what Lowery meant, this should be a non-issue simply because there's no evidence that Obama shares the same views.

jim wrote on January 17, 2008 1:05 AM:

They should probably find out what Obama's barber's cousin thinks about this. And does his mailman's daughter support Farrakhan or not? Obama should really address this...

This is getting absurd.

jim wrote on January 17, 2008 1:11 AM:

Off topic, but can someone at TPM tell Josh to FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop posting baby pictures? It is worse than Kevin Drum's cat blogging -- and that is saying a lot. Ok, yeah, great, you have a son. Please don't take pictures out of your blog-wallet and show them to us every week. Or is TPM his MySpace page?

Joe Lisboa wrote on January 17, 2008 1:11 AM:

... bear in mind that Lowery's remarks were not made at any kind of campaign-sponsored event, but rather were made on his own time at an unrelated venue.

So it's totally worth discussing then, no? Ah, right.

hisgirlfriday wrote on January 17, 2008 1:12 AM:

How is this a headache?

Lowery isn't attacking the Clintons or Clinton supporters as far as I can tell based on the excerpt you posted, he is attacking self-defeatism in the black community and perhaps challenging black voters who will vote against Obama solely because he is black thinking he has no chance of winning.

Further, I don't see that Clinton and Obama made an agreement to dial back all talk about race or civil rights, they just said they were going to try not to let identity politics divide them. I would hope all the candidates would still talk about civil rights and their importance as that is an issue important to most Democrats.

Also, I would think someone like Joseph Lowery who has devoted his whole life to the civil rights movement doesn't need to completely stop talking about issues of race or civil rights just because of some statement made by Obama and Hillary's political campaigns.

But I guess if the media wants to keep the race wars going since they apparently have no interest in doing any actual reporting on issues but just need to parse everything every candidate's surrogate says to death in order to make news that's their prerogative.

Southpaw wrote on January 17, 2008 1:23 AM:

Great comment, BillB, about the NV at large caucus lawsuit. I've made this point in another thread: the claim that the at-large precincts are allocated more than what was reasonably (and very openly, in full view of all campaigns) estimated to be their fair share of delegates is completely false. It is apples and oranges. The normal precincts have been allocated delgates based on the number of REGISTERED VOTERS in that precinct, NOT the number of folks who actually show up. Since the at-large precincts are not based upon residency, but upon where people work -- and because the state does not keep as readily available records about where people work (they have 2006 tax return info, but it does not sufficiently account for changes in workplace during 2007, and people don't fill out "change of workplace address" forms as a matter of course), they simply cannot base the delegate estimate on any specific number of POTENTIAL caucus-goers. They instead need to base it on who actually shows up. So why the different calculation? Because -- and this should be more widely reported -- obviously the NV state Dem party looked at historical primary turnout, and found that only roughly 10 percent of registered voters actually show up.

This article regarding Bubba's ridiculous defense of the lawsuit says as much: the party expects 40,000 democrats, 10 PERCENT of the registered democrats in the state, to show up.

http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/011608kvuenevada-bkm.2c833cc9.html

Since the at-large delegates are awarded based on who actually shows up, the 10x multiple was therefore deemed warranted.

BillB is quite right that this could hypothetically swing one way or the other. But the state party did their damnedest to strike the right balance, EVEN, it would seem, accounting for the expected increase in turnout this year due to the earlier date and close horserace (as the article mentions, only 9,000 showed up last time around).

Keep in mind also that, in essence, the REST of the NV precincts are awarding delegates such that those who actually SHOW UP get to speak ON BEHALF of those who don't... assuming past history repeats itself, 10 percent of registered voters will be allowed to make their voices heard on behalf of the other 80 percent. BUT, that's not all... they're also being allowed to vote on behalf of people who DID show up, just not at their home precinct. That is, for every shift worker who is going to vote at the at-large precinct near his/her workplace rather than his/her home precinct, that person is still counting as a registered voter in his home precinct, and thus leading to an overstatement of the number of people on whose behalf those who DO show up to that precinct are actually representing.

Example. Say there are 1000 registered voters in Blue Precinct, which under the math means Blue Precinct gets 20 delegates to the county convention. Let's say 100 of those registered voters are shift workers who won't be home for the caucus and instead have the at-large precinct as their only opportunity to caucus. That means the Blue Precinct should really only be awarded 18 delegates (900/50). Let's further assume that of these 100 shift workers, only 10 of them show up. These 10 shift workers get to account for 2 delegates. Theoretically, these are the 2 delegates that shouldn't be "double counted" in the Blue Precinct, they should be SUBTRACTED from it. Thing is, if it were that easy to keep track of which workers live and work where (information that would be necessary to avoid double counting in the "regular" precincts), they wouldn't need the different math in the first place, they'd just let the shift workers caucus at their workplace and transfer those results to their home precincts. That clearly wasn't an option. But the point here is that if anyone can complain of automatic vote dilution, it's those who will be voting at the at-large precincts, yet still being "represented" by the folks who actually show up in their home precincts.

All of this is to say that if the TRO actually is granted tomorrow, not only will I eat my shoe, I will personally fly to Vegas and file an amicus on behalf of the state party on its emergency appeal. (Any excuse to fly to Vegas, really.) Anybody know what the pro hac rules are for Nevada? Seriously.

Oh, and btw, Eric, this post of yours is ridiculous. For all the reasons stated in the other comments.

roo_P wrote on January 17, 2008 1:25 AM:

"...but rather were made on his own time at an unrelated venue."

Yet, here we are. It is like a little miracle how these words just make their way to your blog post all on their own. It is like the march of the fricking penguins.

It is important to note, though, that "slavery mentality" is not a derogatory term. It specifically refers to a phenomenon where an oppressed minority is able to be kept oppressed specifically because -- and only because -- they do not realise their own power. The african-american community will need to resolve whether it is an accurate description among themselves, I think.

For what it is worth, anecdotally my non-imaginary hip black friends did have some reservations about whether the U.S. is "ready" for a black fellow running the ship but I think those have mostly been lifted and everyone seems to be happy to just make their decision based on other qualifications.

Anyway--Eric pretending he is just an innocent bystander here is rather infuriating. Bah on you, Eric.

Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 1:27 AM:

Here's some good news for Obama supporters from that same AJC blog:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/01/16/uncommitteds_small_victory_and.html

The race now moves to Nevada, where Obama’s people are trumpeting their endorsement by Jack Carter, oldest son of former President Jimmy Carter. As we recall, Jack Carter was originally a Joe Biden man.

Carter did a decent job running in 2006 against Ensign and is well liked among Nevada Democrats.

Southpaw wrote on January 17, 2008 1:28 AM:

"80 percent" in my last post should read "90 percent."

I stand by the rest. :-)

Tithonia wrote on January 17, 2008 1:37 AM:

Baby pictures are always awesome, Sam is beautiful, and that's why blogging is superior to the MSM. It has that three-dimensional humanity.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 1:46 AM:

actually what this means is that anyone who questions Obama's ability to lead at this time is someone who feels blacks can't lead?

racism in reverse...victimization turned on its ass.

anyone good enough to lead gets my vote.
color or gender be damned.

but if i dare feel Obama isn't ready...and I do as he is not who he says he is, and his surrogates will do it all.....and i don't like his record in illinois or the US Senate....

I condemn african americans?

what bad reasoning. what a guilt trip.

c wrote on January 17, 2008 2:21 AM:

I vote for more baby pictures, fewer frivolous postings.

He may be right or wrong, but this is Rev. Joseph Lowery, cofounder of the SCLC with Martin Luther King. The man has more than earned the right to speak, and I can pretty much assure you he's speaking for himself and not as a surrogate for anyone.

And his point, despite some folks' efforts to overblow it so they can enjoy getting all offended, is pretty simple -- there's a deep vein of fatalism out there that no black man will ever get elected President so it's useless to support one. That's all the Rev. Lowery is going after. (He's not sayin' you have to support Obama or else, anon -- that's *your* bad reasoning!)

Davidson wrote on January 17, 2008 2:24 AM:

As an Edwards supporter, I'm taken aback by the double standard: When Cuomo, a supporter, was blasted incorrectly for referring to Obama with a "racial" phrase, this site jumped all over Clinton. Hell, it proved there was a "pattern." When Obama's close friend Gov. Patrick--a man that would not speak out on such an issue without Obama's approval--again fanned the flames today, there's no skewering of Obama as it would've been if he had been a Clinton supporter instead.

If Obama truly was hurt by any injection of race then Jesse Jackson, Jr.--his national co-chair--never would've been allowed to do just that--and how!--the day after the NH primary.

Either stop holding Obama to a lighter standard or don't hold any standard at all. This was most evident with Obama's praise of Reagan. The same supporters that viciously condemned the Clintons as racists of all things, bent over backwards to sanitize Obama's pro-Reagan love. Hilarious! If either Clinton or Edwards had made the same statement this site would use it as proof that Clinton was a triangulator (Obama's tactics are described as "bipartisan") or that Edwards was a phony.

jeanba wrote on January 17, 2008 2:35 AM:

Davidson,

What did Gov. Patrick said? Are you out of your mind? Obama has no love for Reagan and none as far as I know has ever said that Edwards is a phony. Myself I do support both Edwards and Obama and has never heard anybody calling Edwards a phony. Obama is not held at light standard, look at all the smear that has been going around about him before writing your lies. We know what you are trying to say by implying Hillary and Edwards are held to higher standards than Obama. People like you really piss me off, and you call yourself a progressive? Every body knows that Reagan changed American political landscape in the 80's and that's what Barack was saying, spin it as much as you know but people are not stupid as you think. We know there is no love for Reagan by Obama.

A Democrat wrote on January 17, 2008 2:40 AM:

This attitude represents a way that race does play a strong role in Obama support.

According to this venerable fellow, if you're an African American and you question Obama's readiness than you have a "slave mentality".

Similarly among his white supporters - particularly the more zealous ones - if you detract from his candidacy so you're a closet racist or at least lack the decency of the white guilt gene that is supposed to guarantee you a place on the bandwagon.

But friends, could it not be simply that those who criticize Obama on his qualifications are judging him not by the content of his skin, but the content of his character? - character that we may rightfully, as American citizens, wish to see him develop before we hand him the most powerful office in the land.

Davidson wrote on January 17, 2008 2:50 AM:

jeenba,

Yeah, that's right: the only possible conclusion is that I'm out of my mind (Thanks for such a courteous post). So true. Let me run down your rant list:

If you didn't even watch Governor Patrick then how the hell do you condemn me? He said everything the Clintons do is intentional.

You've never heard anyone calling Edwards a phony? Wow.

People like me piss you off? Good Lord, how hypersensitive are you? You respond to comments by rational feedback, not batshit madness ("OMG! How dare you! Ack!") Hell, you're speculating that I must not be a progressive because I dare to even suggest that there's a double standard between Clinton and Obama?! Where's your proof that I'm not a progressive? Where? I showed clear-cut examples of a double standard-- Cuomo, a supporter, versus this Obama supporter; Jesse Jackson, Jr's inflammatory comments versus anything either Clinton said--and you fail to address these blatant examples. If Clinton's supporter had said "slave mentality" or if she herself had made that Reagan statement, in which she, too, criticized the "excesses" of the previous decade and praised Reagan's optimism, you're telling me that she would not be absolutely attacked? Come on! Here's another example: She was attacked when her husband's "fairy tale" comment was taken out of context!

What lies did I type? Name one. You confuse e-mail smears with the blogs and the press, even though I specifically discussed this site--TPM. If we were just looking at e-mails, then Clinton, too, would be just as badly treated considering how rabid the right-wing demonization of her has been for the past 20 years!

Next time actually address the issues instead of spewing random, bizarre, and utterly desperate ad hominem attacks.

Davidson wrote on January 17, 2008 2:56 AM:

jeanba,

One last thing: I specifically said that if Clinton made the same statement about Reagan, she'd be vilified. Tell me how that's not true.

Obama:
I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

All the bold statements just were not true about Reagan. For example, he didn't appeal to our better selves, but to bigotry and reactionary zeal.

Again, if Clinton had said that considering that she was attacked for her MLK comment and "emotional" moment, how would she not be vilified uttering those very same words?

Again, knock it off being a jackass and address my question. Use evidence, facts, logic, not so sensitive you can't hold a discussion without flaming out.

Phoebe wrote on January 17, 2008 3:08 AM:

I don't think you're not allowed to bring up race as a topic, I think the pact just applied to the context of a campaign accusation. So this is fine. I think it would be insulting and creepy to attempt to ban the topic, period.

kozmik wrote on January 17, 2008 3:31 AM:

As others have pointed out, Eric doesn't know what he's talking about. Before offering editorial commentary he should learn something abut the topic he's covering. Otherwise, it's just the same pundit BS we get from the MSM.

This is one of those arguments withing the African American community that have been ongoing for decades. It doesn't have anything specifically to do with Obama.

I'll second what someone else said: Eric, speak intelligently from knowledge, or just STFU. There's no shortage of uninformed idiots as pundits.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 17, 2008 5:52 AM:

And the hits just keep on coming, don't they? That such a derisive comment would eminate from the lips of Rev. Lowery is in itself disheartening.

But because Lowery's both an elderly man and a living icon of the civil rights movement, he's clearly earned the occasional mulligan. Thus, I have to recuse his political frustration and further give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intent, in earnest hope that he merely misspoke.

And while I don't favor his candidacy, I also recognize that Sen. Obama cannot be his brother's keeper 24/7. As such, he cannot and should not be held liable for what Rev. Lowery said, any more than Sen. Clinton is responsible for Lou Dobbs' ludicrous and unfounded statement tonight that half the Las Vegas-based membership of the culinary workers union are illegal immigrants.

After all, they don't call our quadrennial presidential election cycles "the silly season" for nothing.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 17, 2008 6:07 AM:

jim: "Off topic, but can someone at TPM tell Josh to FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop posting baby pictures?"

Dude!

M Miller wrote on January 17, 2008 6:26 AM:

I can't wait until this primary is all over with so this can end and I can stay home on Election day when I have the choice between Hillary (GOP lite) or GOP.

So much for change. With all the negativity swirling around, people will once again turn away from politics and just let the government take care of the people's business.

phillips wrote on January 17, 2008 7:06 AM:

eric and greg:

you both represent what is problematic about web "reporting." as others have noted, there is no context here, no history, no sense of who Lowery is (i live in Atlanta), no audience/gathering response - nothing.

second: obama did not "compare himself to Reagan." he actually is trying to contextualize important shifts in voting patterns and priorities - and therefore shifts in policies and political discourse. in fact, he says he is not working from a "great man/woman" frame of political analysis, and in doing so explicitly shifts his remarks from HIMSELF!

again: headlines likes this (and the one greg posted yesterday) represent what is troubling about web "reporting."

Question: Is it possible that obama's efforts to lift the level of political discourse are lost on you?? is it possible that the Post might have to work a little harder (intellectually) so that people's words are not misrepresented?

Amber wrote on January 17, 2008 7:07 AM:

I must admit that I've more or less been thinking the same thing. There are still many Americans, not just African-Americans, that have a pessimistic attitude and negativity about the possibilities. However, after Iowa, more and more African-Americans are warm to the idea that Obama is the real deal.

Much of the establishment African-American hesitation or Hillary support comes from the fear that the vindictive Clintons will punish them (just look at how Camp Hillary flat out threatened Bill Richardson after his campaign pushed for Obama as second choice). Charles Rangel has too much invested in being a loyal Clintonite despite what he must know in his heart is a betrayal of what he supposedly stands for. The same goes for the corporate types like BET's Robert L. Johnson. And all of those on the fence like Al Sharpton might have to face Lowery's statement.

As far as Lowery goes, he definitely has some major faults, but you know what–Camp Hillary would have loved to have had his support.

mari wrote on January 17, 2008 7:31 AM:

I don't see the issue here...this guy is important in the black community, and as far as the civil rights movement goes, this chance is historic...so...it makes sense...so...who cares? It wasn't from this Obama campaign, it wasn't said in the context of a campaign event...this isn't news.

Yawn.

steph wrote on January 17, 2008 7:38 AM:

Dr. Joseph Lowery has more than enough credentials to make this statement. When he speaks it is worthwhile to listen. He co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Council with Dr. King and was his close friend. I consider his words to be almost what King would have said.

Bret wrote on January 17, 2008 7:48 AM:

This is just the beginning. Now the congressional black caucus memebers are trying to demonize those members who support Clinton over Obama. Obama will lose this nomination, because of black people, who are still not savy enough to understand that race cannot be used in this election. There are tons more whites and Hispanics in this country, and if they feel it is about race, they will go with Hillary. Why black don't know that by now is beyond me. Hillary and Bill were black icons, before Obama ran, now that the worst racist in America. Wake up black people, everyone is watching. People can vote for whoever they want. It is not racist or slave mentality to vote for someone other than Obama, who still hasn't shown me any reason to vote for him. Vote for the best candidate.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 8:00 AM:

So according to this reverend, all black should vote for a black. Why not all white should vote for white otherwise they may still harbor some sort of racial guilt? Gimme a break!

Zach wrote on January 17, 2008 8:06 AM:

I really hope Clinton supporters aren't pushing this story... pretty stupid given her comment exactly one year ago using the same rhetoric w/ a lot less authority to do so:

In her speech Monday, Clinton, who has never served in the House, told the audience that "when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 8:10 AM:

I am glad to see that even African Americans who don't want to vote for Obama are racist, not just the white people. Obviously anyone who doesn't want to vote for the least experienced, least qualified candidate must have some sort of bias and prejudice. As all Obama supporter know he is the second coming, so there can be no good reason to be against him execpt for prejudice. All decent, good people must be for Obama, why can't everyone see that?

Rich wrote on January 17, 2008 8:51 AM:

Unfortunately, these are the sorts of posts you get when TPM allows an inexperienced journalist to opine. For the record, the "slave mentality" is common talk among us folk, and it means simply "get your self-esteem together." It's a valuable self-help message that's been passed on in the community for generations.

LongtimeDem wrote on January 17, 2008 8:51 AM:

Must the Obama campaign insist on playing the race card each and every week?

It's grown tiresome.

CalD wrote on January 17, 2008 8:54 AM:

Eric Kleefeld: This might lead to a headache for Obama. But bear in mind that Lowery's remarks were not made at any kind of campaign-sponsored event, but rather were made on his own time at an unrelated venue.

Well, since the same was obviously true of Andrew Cuomo recently, only more so -- Cuomo has no official relationship with Hillary Clinton's campaign, he was not speaking at a Clinton event or on Clinton's behalf when he made that remark, and he wasn't even talking about Barack Obama as it turned out -- I am sure that Obama's people will want others to give Mr. Obama the same benefit of understanding that distinction that they practiced themselves with regard to Mrs. Clinton in the Cuomo case.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 17, 2008 9:02 AM:

Phillips wrote:

"second: obama did not "compare himself to Reagan." he actually is trying to contextualize important shifts in voting patterns and priorities - and therefore shifts in policies and political discourse. in fact, he says he is not working from a "great man/woman" frame of political analysis, and in doing so explicitly shifts his remarks from HIMSELF!"

IMHO if anything sinks Obama, it is the fact that subtly and nuance are not strengths of the American people at large. (I will now get criticized for calling the American people stupid, which will be a case in point).

Hence why a buffoon like GWB can become President. People "liked" his simple manner and voted for him. In the end, it comes down to a personality contest like school class President.

Patricia wrote on January 17, 2008 9:03 AM:

It is sad that, even with the best intentions, everybody is saying that is bad for Obama to even mention (his own)race. It is sad as well that the same people express a seemingly respectful tone when referring to Billary, who keeps playing the race card in a rather ominus way.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 9:05 AM:

Reverend Lowery, likeall of us, should avoid sweeping generalizations. For Lowery to suggest that every African American who doesn't support Obama's candidacy because they haven't escaped the "slave mentality" does nothing more than marginalize those with a differing opinion. Does Obama have to answer for Lowery's comments? Hell no! Lowery's opinion is Lowery's opinion.
Even though I am not now supporting Obama, I am glad he is in the race. Oops! I mean competition for the Democraticnomination. Yeah, that's better!

wwjb wrote on January 17, 2008 9:06 AM:

must have been a slow news night..

Jane wrote on January 17, 2008 9:15 AM:

I have a dream: paint them all orange and vote on the merits.

JenJen wrote on January 17, 2008 9:20 AM:

This "headache for Obama" thing is ridiculous, Eric. Total stretch there.

But enough about that... what's important is that Josh can post all the pictures of that absolutely gorgeous child that he wants. Who wouldn't be proud of little Sam?

And personally, I totally prefer it to cat-blogging. :-)

CalD wrote on January 17, 2008 9:26 AM:

This "headache for Obama" thing is ridiculous, Eric. Total stretch there.

JenJen: Sarcasm or wishful thinking?

Matt in Costa Rica wrote on January 17, 2008 9:29 AM:

You know, as a white man in my late thirties I see this same mentality, or perhaps its exact opposite, playing out among otherwise progressive whites who claim to support Hillary because they don't believe the US will elect a black man as president. All of these people are in their 50's an over. I think that is why so much of Obama's support is among young people where there are less hangups about the color of his skin. There is a long cultural memory about racism among both groups, so it is good that Lowery and other leaders talk about these things. It is very different, however, to refer to Obama as shucking an jiving. Those comments are not an attempt to talk about the effects of racism in the US. Comments like those are designed to bring out the worst in people and to continue to seed doubts about Obama among Hillary's older white supporters. Go Obama!!

DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 9:30 AM:

I love seeing those pictures of Sam that appear time to time!
Sam is a testament to the beauty of a human being before he/she is run through the usual process of becoming a cynical hardened-into-ad nauseum-stale-opinions adult, like many of the posters here.

wj wrote on January 17, 2008 9:32 AM:

I missed the article in which Eric queries whether Clinton would need to answer for Gloria Steinem's editorial in the Times...

John Y wrote on January 17, 2008 9:36 AM:

Still waiting for Hillary to cut Robert Johnson loose...oh, wait.

Ted wrote on January 17, 2008 9:41 AM:

Okay, I think I see the logical conclusion from this comment thread:

We need a Draft Sam movement.

How can we produce real change in Washington if we keep sending the same generation of tired, jaded politicians and pundits TO Washington?

We need a fresh voice with fresh ideas.

SAM '08.

ShutupNvote wrote on January 17, 2008 9:42 AM:

So he has a point of view it is interesting not one I share but just like Johnson they are entitled to their own beliefs just dont use it to hate bait and become hysterical you are perpetuating puppetry. Wapo, MSNBC, NBC, Huff are pulling the strings here inflaming folks against some thing, when ever, what ever, there have been many substantial issues and analysis that these mediums are not up to or are just to blinded against and not reporting on. Kucinich has a point about GE having a dog in the hunt be careful who you serve with this crap. In 2004 11 percent of Dems did not vote for Kerry.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 17, 2008 9:45 AM:

"NO well-informed african-american citizen in this country would be offended by his "slavery" reference."

I think that's wrong. Obama might be offened. One thing white people like about Obama is that he doesn't seem to have a chip on his shoulder like many black Americans. Remember, he is not a descendant of slaves.

Steve wrote on January 17, 2008 9:50 AM:

I read this as African Americans who believe Obama should have waited to run for president, or that he doesn't have a chance as the ones criticized as having a slavery mentality.

DBH wrote on January 17, 2008 10:00 AM:

I just don't see how this is 'playing the race card'? What Obama and HRC agreed to was to stop using the politics of race. This isn't that. It isn't calling one candidate out for racial remarks or emphasizing the blackness of a candidate to discourage white vote, or anything. It is simply reminding black folks who are concerned that a black man could never be president that it is true as long as black people wont vote for him out of this fear... Not race baiting in any way. Eric, way off the reservation on this one...the Obama campaign has nothing to 'answer for'...

As for the Johnson comparison, Johnson spoke about the OTHER candidate in negative terms, not his own candidate in positive terms. And at a campaign event, not in his own pulpit. Huge difference, and HRC, to her credit, finally said so.

Scientific wrote on January 17, 2008 10:05 AM:

Only someone who didn't know what the hell they're talking about would say that this would be a problem for Obama. I agree with that man's statement to the letter. Wake up, people.

PeterB wrote on January 17, 2008 10:17 AM:

Seems like a complete non-story. This is something that white folk need to stay out of. I agree with the good rev that Obama scares some black folk that would have a hard time accepting the concept of a black man as our president. It would change and repudiate their whole perspective of our country.

Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 10:27 AM:

It's at The Hungry Club, a not insignificant gathering in Atlanta (and not just for Blacks either - it started 60 years ago as a black-white forum).

The not-too-subtle message is that if you don't support Obama (i.e. "later, alligator"), you're a slave. [It's couched as "a black man for President", but then is followed by "Obama's the right man".] However, Dr. King's diatribes against "later" had to do with pushing important civil rights goals, not his own position or personal ambition and pride. I can see the immediate need for representation, an end to segregation, etc. What's the immediate need or moral imperative for a Black President?

Quite frankly I'd rather hear Lowery say "Blacks should stick together" than the "slave mentality". This just sounds like schoolboy dares and taunting for something supposedly serious.

A few years ago Kenny G had the audacity and bad taste to mix his clarinet over tracks of the deceased genius Louis Armstrong - essentially artistic necrophilia. When Obama has something to compare with King's Southern Christian Leadership Council and his timely embrace of non-violent protest, bring up MLK again. Thurgood Marshall and MLK are giants because of what they did. In the meantime, is there any problem with him just running on who he is, and not his father, his grandmother, black icons, et al.?

Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 10:45 AM:

I agree that this is not news, and it looks like an attempt to revive TPM's glory days last week when every single post from everyone was about race. Congratulations anyway on finding some race based news today. Really refreshing and a great example of the kind of work you are trying to do here at TPM.

Is this really the news today Eric? Are you really a journalist?

Is it a "headache" for Hillary that her prominant supporter Anne Rice said "you go girl" and referenced the "good old boys club" that is trying to keep her back? No. Because every time gender comes up in the mainstream, it helps Hillary. Just like every time race comes up in the mainstream, it helps Hillary.

Any mention of the matchup polls that have Obama producing margins double or more what Hillary can produce in the general? Isn't that maybe a little more of an election story than "some guy who likes Obama said something racial?"

leslie wrote on January 17, 2008 11:03 AM:

thanks for speaking for all of us' educated negros'....we needs to know how ta vote, rev...
iz we having 'alter time' this week?

JenJen wrote on January 17, 2008 11:07 AM:

This "headache for Obama" thing is ridiculous, Eric. Total stretch there. JenJen: Sarcasm or wishful thinking?

Neither, CalD. Truth. And honestly, I don't think Eric is in any position to criticize Reverend Lowery's words. Sounds like something fed to him directly from the Clinton camp.

JenJen wrote on January 17, 2008 11:07 AM:

This "headache for Obama" thing is ridiculous, Eric. Total stretch there. JenJen: Sarcasm or wishful thinking?

Neither, CalD. Truth. And honestly, I don't think Eric is in any position to criticize Reverend Lowery's words. Sounds like something fed to him directly from the Clinton camp.

Liam wrote on January 17, 2008 11:10 AM:

If he had not run, then he would have already lost. No one has ever won any competition by not entering. "Wait his turn" My Arse!. If he wins, will they still proclaim that he is not legitimate because he did not "wait his turn". Obama is offering the voters an option that no one else in 2008 is providing. Win or lose, it is good for voters to have a chance to consider what he offers them.

DrumMajorForJustice wrote on January 17, 2008 11:11 AM:

Dealing with Slavery’s Legacy

During June 2005, in what was considered a magnanimous gesture by some, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for the enslavement of Africans brought to the American colonies and later to the U.S.; but really who cares and who benefits when a group of rich, contemporary white men, by voice vote, (obscuring the actual votes of individual Senators), apologize for the inhumanity perpetrated against African slaves? I suspect no one does!! The casual observance of who is memorialized in the U.S. and who is not memorialized speaks volumes about the validity of this assertion and the point being addressed by the Reverend Lowery. For years I have wondered why there is no U.S. African American Slavery Museum within a “stones throw” of the U.S. national mall just as there is a Holocaust Memorial Museum located there. Why is there a Holocaust Memorial Day on the calendar in the U.S.? But no African American Slave Memorial Day on the calendar? Surely someone must care about what happened to the slaves. Otherwise, why did the Senate pass a resolution to apologize? Also, ponder this question: what did the U.S., as a government, do to the Jews or Israel except courageously conquer the fascist German regime that victimized them during WW II, create the post 1948 “special relationship” with an independent Israel that disenfranchised indigenous Palestinian Arabs and each year grant the state of Israel, a nation state with a gross domestic product nearly equal Spain’s, about one-fifth of U.S. foreign aid? On the other hand the colonies, and subsequently U.S. state governments, not a despotic foreign power bent on imperialism, destroyed the African slaves’ ancestral and familial connection, cultural and economic viability, and withheld from them the inalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. State governments even codified “Jim Crow” laws that politically disenfranchised and obstructed the economic and social assimilation of the slaves and their African American descendents. Some of these laws were on the books well into the twentieth century. Moreover, the legacy and effects of the disenfranchisement and marginalization can still be observed writ large in contemporary U.S. life, including how contemporary African American view themselves. I hold the opinion that it will take a thousand years of U.S. government attention, African American individual educational initiative, responsible African American introspection as expressed by the reverened Lowery and self-help to eradicate. This is the price that must be paid by the U.S. government and the African slaves’ descendents for the enslavement and freeing of the slaves without the proper and serious consideration of a strategy for their social and economic assimilation into U.S. society at large. Personally, I cannot comprehend how difficult and demeaning life must have been for a slave previously denied formal education by law, and considered property one day, and the next day is a free person in a mostly agrarian capitalist market economy. However, I believe it is futile, today, to dwell on these reprehensible acts against African Americans in the early history of the United States. Rather, the more important contemporary imperative is to deal with the continuing and deleterious burden the legacy of slavery has imposed on many African Americans, especially those trapped on the lowest rung of the U.S. socio-economic ladder.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 11:22 AM:

Yet another case of the media (in this case TPM) making much ado about nothing.

Liam wrote on January 17, 2008 11:33 AM:

Why gas TPM not reported this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/17/clinton-supporter-apologizes-for-obama-comments/

Clinton supporter apologizes for Obama comments
Posted: 09:20 AM ET

(CNN) – High-profile Hillary Clinton supporter Bob Johnson is apologizing to Barack Obama for comments he made last week regarding the Illinois senator's acknowledged drug use as a teenager. Johnson said he sent a letter to Obama Thursday morning and said he was also reaching out by phone.

onceler wrote on January 17, 2008 11:35 AM:

wj makes a good point above, what about Steinem's factually and historically challenged op-ed in the NYTimes where she talks about how much easier black men have had it in the US than white women...I've seen other women writers shoot that crap down, but funny it received no mention here...

MonaL wrote on January 17, 2008 11:35 AM:

The Rev. is only partly right, some black folk don't think Obama is ready because he isn't. It's not the "slave mentality", they're just political realists.

DrumMajorForJustice wrote on January 17, 2008 11:49 AM:

MonaL: Assuming you are one of those black people who believe Sen.Obama "isn't ready", please expand your comment to include specific deficiencies in his background, and your view of their impact, from a "political realist's" perspective.

Threegoal wrote on January 17, 2008 11:54 AM:

Writing as a white guy, and I'm not just playing one, I feel fundamentally unqualified to judge what's right and wrong when an African-American leader of the stature of Rev. Lowery is speaking to members of his race, unless he would be advocating violence or fanning hatred, bigotry, or the like.

I leave it to African-Americans alone to judge the appropriateness of his message.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 17, 2008 11:57 AM:

'Yes, people that doubt that a black man can get elected have a "slave mentality."'

Fuck.You.

Respectfully.

'NO well-informed african-american citizen in this country would be offended by his "slavery" reference.'

And you too.

Elizabeth wrote on January 17, 2008 12:00 PM:

If Sen. Edwards' father, a former mill worker, spoke to a gathering of mill workers and similar blue collar folks and said "Don't be afraid to vote for John just because he's from a mill family and you believe no one from that background can win, because we've been beaten down and intimidated and powerless for so long" - would people be offended?

If Gloria Steinam (sp?)spoke to - oh, say - a gathering of young women at Wellesley College or wrote an article for the NY Times and said "Don't be afraid to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and you don't believe a woman can win, because we've been considered second class citizens for so long" - would people be offended?

Rev. Josephy Lowery has -- no, he has *earned* -- the right to speak to his community about matters important to that community as well.

manny wrote on January 17, 2008 12:15 PM:

Leahy endorses Obama.

TexModDem wrote on January 17, 2008 2:25 PM:

Note that the fact that the speaker wasn't associated with the campaign would have no bearing if it were something "racial" said by a Clinton supporter similarly unassociated.

manny: "Leahy endorses Obama."

Didn't he endorse Kerry/Edwards and Gore/Lieberman, too?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)