Obama's Struggle With Typical Liberal Hypocrisy

From the beginning it's been fairly clear a big chunk of supposedly liberal America hasn't been ready for Barack Obama. Their unease obvious in the shock and awe of Joe Biden, and in Newsweek's inane, aloud wonderings of whether or not Obama was "black enough." "Black enough" for the liberals being people of color in the Sharpton/Jackson mold; Old Schoolers devoutly wed to the regressive ideology of loud haranguing and low expectations. Obama -- early on in a Pound Cake-esque fashion urging people of color to do better and questioning race-based affirmative action -- was clearly not "black enough" for the Liberal Plantation.

Any doubt that Obama was from the jump fighting not only for the presidency, but also against Lefty hypocrisy was shattered into a million pieces by Geraldine Ferraro's "lucky" black man remark. Those pieces then again refined by Clinton's talk of "hard-working Americans, white Americans."

Clearly much of the liberal Left has long seen...oh, your average non-hard-working black, as nothing more than a piece of a loyal voting bloc. Keep us anesthetized, they feel, with promises of hand outs and government mollycoddling and we will mindlessly check the "D" box on Election Day.

Conservatives are, of course, not a hair less bigoted in their hearts (nor are Independents or anyone else for that matter). But unlike Democrats, Republicans have found a way to play nicely with the ideologically aligned, regardless of the color of their skin.

That, perhaps, is part of the problem; Obama is more his own man than merely a Democratic tool. That he refused to put up a show, and then capitulate, makes him all the more frustrating to those on the Left used to their people of color playing by pre-prescribed rules.

In that regard it's too bad Obama's not an anti-war Republican. His "Yes We Can" message of hope, his Morning in America redux, would have worked much better had it not be drowned out by the typical gloom and doom drum beat of the liberal machine. And all that clack about him being elitist? Well, the Right's managed to sneak in a "down to earth" Ivy League president two cycles running. As both sides make a grab for the middle, imagine what the Right could have done with the likes of Obama.

Which is not to say that Obama won't still be elected president. At this point I think there's nothing that he can't do. Though, if so, he will do it despite the best efforts of the typical hypocrisy of the Left.

Comments

[brakmaster]

How dare you John. Color doesn't matter, because Barack is promising BIG CHANGES.

Just think about what our world will be like in four years. "Typical" liberalism won't even exist at that point. I wonder if color will even exist. Barack is guaranteeing change on a scale that we have never seen in our history. Will your name even be John Ridley when all this is over? I wonder...

[kellygrrrl]

as a Feminist, I am baffled by women who think that means "Special Treatment"
hmmm, I thought it meant Equal Treatment

I applaud any African-American who feels that Affirmative Action should mean Equality - not special.

May The Best HUMAN Win!!!!!!!

[kellygrrrl]

a bi-racial kid of a single teen mom is ELITIST? WTF?

a quiet reserved student who refuses to engage in drugs or hate speech is ARROGANT? huh?

what the he!! is wrong with our society and the mis-shapen labels we slap on people?

[brakmaster]

No a man who is worth several million dollars and talks about the price of arugula lettuce is elitist.

And what do drugs and/or hate speech have to do with arrogance?

[MariaHopeful]

You know it is about time we go all out and SHATTER some of these easy, opportunistic talking points. The whole damn country SHOULD BE EATING MORE ARUGULA and drinking more orange juice! How bout that? Maybe then we would bring down the cost of health care, have less heart attacks, strokes and cancer. Less people walking around with their guts hanging over their belts. How bout that? Is that elitism or freaken common sense. Just maybe we need a revolution in the way we eat.

[kellygrrrl]

the point is, just because he chose to spend his college years reading and writing rather than doing drugs and raising he!! does NOT make him arrogant.
why is intellectualism considered arrogant?

[kilv]

Actually a values and principle based candidate who "happens to be black," is much more the inevitable first African-American Pres, than would be someone who tried to fit within the self-defeating stereotypes which the press, media, and establishment have foisted upon the public since Emancipation.

I agree with Mr. Ridley, and also find contradictory that someone who is from a core middle-class backround who "happened to go to Harvard," not just that but excelled therein, could be considered 'an elistist,' much beyond something he has said or done. Otherwise the default assumption would have to be this is a well grounded individual­... The media latched on to Obama referring to the truth that many of the average (neglected) lower-middle class midwesterners are bitter, and then short handing the cultural gap translation for the benefit of the West Coast liberals he was addressing to fit in one sentence. Would be a remarkable thing if there were no bitter people living at a subsistence level-- except there really are! So speaking the truth to power (by definition itself an "elite") is somehow elitist?

Finally, Mr. Ridley, you give away your paranoia, and reduce your argument by asserting that there is not only hypocrisy in the Left, but "Conservatives are, of course, not a hair less bigoted in their hearts (nor are Independents or anyone else for that matter). " Wow, that is a pretty blanket statement. So ALL non-black voters in America harbor racism- full stop-? DISAGREE!

[Rubyfoo]

Gee, I thought putting labels on people and judging them as a group is what happened in bigotry against black people. I guess it's just fine to do that to others.

[DBracewell]

Of course there's a clear difference between labelling people for their genetic or gender characteristics, their inherent properties and labelling +political+ thought. Not to make that distinction is to generate a straw man argument.

In any case, +the left+ is barely the issue, except if you see everything not republican as +Leftist+ - which, like your own observation, is so devoid of the necessary distinction that Mr. Ridley's argument loses much of its force.

It is Democratic Party centrist politicians who have led the charge against Obama, not least feminist centrists. The true Left in the US is a very small part of the political groupings in the Demoratic party. It sure as hell has not been criticising Obama except in critiquing his weak healthcare plan and so on - something the Left has equally take Clinton on for.

So you make a comment that fails to make the necessary distinction as does Mr. Ridley. Scores are even.

[zizyphus]

Hypocrisy is a necessary part of everyone's personality, part of the price we pay to live in civilized society. But if the Republicans were such a great deal for minorities, one would expect to see a larger group of minority Repub voters. Apparently even the poor, uneducated minorities can realize the Repubs don't have their best interests at heart, ditto for the poor whites, this time around.

We are fired up, we are ready to go. We are old, we are young, we are white, we are Jewish, we are atheist, we are Christian,Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim, we are Black, Asian and Native American. We are Democrats, DINOs, Republicans,Greens, Constitutionalists, and Independents.

For all our differences, for all our hypocrisy, we share a positive vision of the future, and can still rally around the best presidential candidate of the century, a true man of the people, Barack Obama.

[NoSpinTruthZone]

So.. is he saying that liberals are racist? Or are liberals classist?

Are minorities racists? Are minorities classists?

Could it be simply that.... he's stirring mud?

I think he was just bored one day and figured, 'Hey I can denigrate a lot of folks in one swell blog!'

and wrote something to make us all realize our subconscious desires to find comfort in familiarity. Whether that be middle class people hanging with other middle class people, or Ivy league politicians chastising the middle class, while they try to choke down a shot of whiskey, or dissuade their elitism by trying to partake in middle class frivolities.

I don't know.. but it seems like much to do about nothing.

[MufsMom]

I vote for stirring mud.

[Marlyn]

"Lefty hypocrisy was shattered into a million pieces by Geraldine Ferraro's "lucky" black man remark."

Geraldine Ferraro is a Democrat, but she is NO LEFTY.

[Imhotep]

Those enlightened Republican's invented the Southern strategy. No racism there, huh John? Peace

[brakmaster]

Those people weren't always Republicans down there...

[marymansour]

I just hope the American electorate can get past their ignorance exhibited in the last eight years of a retarded, fascist administration. Barack Obama doesn't talk down to us. He attempts to elevate us with his brilliant mind. Republican and right wing cries of terrorism, war, fear mongering, Arab and Iranian madness: STOP CHECKING OUT THE SOUND BITES AND STUDY THE CONTENTS. Our nation has lost it balance, the Middle East has become a deadlier place, thanks to Bush and Cheney and the world is in a food crisis.

Put on your thinking caps, ALL AMERICANS. Elect Obama and find that we will have turned a corner in our nation....­.a corner that will head us in the right direction.

[Citizen54]

Just remember, folks: John Ridley voted for George W. Bush.
Twice.

[ema]

Explains everything.

[toddx]

Just because this guy voted for an enemy of the constitution twice and scabbed work against his own union does not invalidate his observation of Liberal Hypocrisy.

Heck, the Right depends on hypocrisy to maintain their grip on power. They play the Guns God and Glory each election knowing that these gut issues are far easier to win support than more cerebral issues like healthcare, labor, and education. The Right Wing mantel-bearers and gatekeepers know full well that the policies they support are antithetical to their constituencies needs and future well-being, however these policies have helped to vertically integrate wealth and consolidate power in a very short amount of time.

When a Liberal supports a policy that undermines their convictions everyone is their to throw them under the bus. But none so calculating as the RIght Wing media machine, brought to you in no small part by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed by Liberal Hypocrite extraordinaire Bill Clinton.

So, Ridley might be a wrong about some things, but his observation in this matter are not.

[pamtxstate]

Ridley I know you listened to Obama's speech on race. He called for a greater understanding from both sides. Your article is divisive. You want to divide us by race and party. Yes, I have been shocked by some of the racist comments coming from Democrats in this campaign. Yes, I was shocked by some of the anger expressed by Reverend Wright in his sermon. Frankly I thought this country was further along than it is. I hope Obama can help this country make some real progress in race relations. He is willing to talk honestly, without malice towards either side. That would be a blessing to our nation.

[Skepticat]

Stereotyping liberals are we Mr Ridley? You should know that liberals and the left have become a meaningless catch all phrases for everything that is not uber right neo con gilded age republicanism. Herding cats would be easier than herding liberals.

[ProfessorDuh]

I agree. This is a remarkably shallow analysis.

[Scarllatti]

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND. TODAY, IT IS OBAMA. TOMORROW, IT WILL BE ANOTHER WHITE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, EVEN SOME FROM WV. THEY WILL VISIT BLACK CHURCHES AND SING PRAISES WITH THEM "JUST FOR VOTES". I AM A LOT WISER NOW ABOUT BEING A "DEMOCRAT". ON THE OTHER HAND, I COMMEND ALL WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING ON ISSUES AND PARTY PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF RACE. THOSE WHO VOTE ON RACE ARE A PURE DISGRACE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. WE WILL ALL LIVE TO REAP WHAT WE SOW. IF OBAMA LOSES THIS ELECTION BECAUSE THE SO-CALLED LIBERALS VOTE ON RACE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD KISS OFF EVER GETTING THE WHITE HOUSE IN A MILLENNIUM. MARK MY WORD.

[Gma11]

Please, please, please don't shout at us. I NEVER read such posts. They are simply too difficult to follow.

[Catharsis]

Who's shouting? He's emphasizing.

[littlepuffycloud]

Stop shouting. No likes a shouter.

[Orikinla]

Political hypocrisy plagues American democracy.

What has made Barack Obama so successful so far is not the politiical sound bites of his political spin doctors, but the big budget of his sponsors who used their mainstream media and proxies in the social network sites to launch their vicious campaign of calumny against the Clintons and maligned them so badly that they have done more harm than good to the Democratic Party in the long run of the presidential campaign. If the Clintons and their millions of supporters turn against Barack Obama and his sponsors in the presidential election, do not blame the Clintons.

Why did most working class African Americans who should have voted for John Edwards prefer to vote for Barack Obama?
It is natural for Blacks to support a Black candidate?
Even if the Black candidate is not really better than the White candidate?
The White voters of Barack Obama have impressed me more than the Black voters.
The Blacks are making this presidential election look like a Black versus White power struggle.

Apart from his opposition to the war in Iraq, Barack Obama's shortcomings in political expediency are making him look like the puppet of the political power brokers who really careless about the war in Iraq and want to use him to settle scores and secure their future in the American government.

Americans must not reduce this election into an opportunity to compensate Blacks or settle political scores, because it would be irrational to do so.

[Scarllatti]

My friend, Bush called or said worse things about McCain just to win the primaries. It is a different ball game in the general where the party needs to come together. You are busy recounting what the Obama supporters "did" to the Clintons to win the nomination but willfully forgot that the Clinton machine did all they could, including minimizing Obama but were not successful. While counting the "short-comings" of Obama as a candidate, you chose to forget a WHOOPING BAGGAGE the Clintons bring with them. Even if Hillary (and Bill) were to get the nomination, that does NOT guarantee that she will be elected in the general. Yours is only wishful thinking. Please direct your fire to your real "enemy" the GOP. The train has left the station. You are the one stuck in this Black vs White politics in the Democratic party. Blacks have "served" your White ego in the Democratic party for quite too long. That is just about to end. So, live with it, ok?

[kindofblue]

You seem to be really frightened of Barack Obama. Why?

Is it because he was able to, very calmly and methodically totally destroy the pomposity of the Clintons? If so, why don't you admire this incredible achievement? Think about it, you imply that the early favorites are the mature and experienced ones, yet how could Hillary or Edwards be so completely flummoxed? Don't forget that Hillary had the overwhelming majority of the AA vote. No spin machine can pull something like this off without being based on deep substance.

As I've said in many posts, if you want to see the deep roots of the Obama machine, go and volunteer at one of his offices. You'll see the most competent and confident people, from every walk of life, calmly doing the little things that have to be done. No mouth-breathing, no excuses, no projection of blame.

Speaking as one who has slowly made his way to the BHO campaign, the satisfaction is not winning a particular campaign. Rather, it's seeing sanity return, and realizing that there is a strong majority, not silent but not shrill, who supports it and rejects rove/bush/fox and their Democratic wannabees.

[oogabooga]

Brilliantly said.

[onedivasinger]

Black versus white power struggle? What are you talking about? First of all, black people have voted for white people overwhelmingly since black people got the right to vote! Secondly, in the beginning of this campaign, Hillary had the vast majority of the African American vote. Period. I still know older black people who refuse to vote for Obama...fo­r many reasons that are much too complicated to explain in this post.
Finally...­there is nothing about Obama that makes him look like or act like someone's "puppet." Maybe you are so accustomed to watching the ultimate sock puppet(Mr. Bush), that you don't know the real deal when you see it. Perhaps you don't even want to see it because your misunderst­anding...d­eliberate or otherwise, of black people won't allow you to see Senator Obama for who he is. "Compensate Blacks?" Who the hell are you kidding? This country was built on the vessel of slave labor. Black people love this country as much as anyone. That is why they continue to fight for it and tell the truth about it. Settling a score seems to be YOUR motivation.

[MsLiz]

John Edwards is a great speaker, but I did not see him do anything in his time in the US Senate to achieve the goals he now articulates.

[Podewumun]

You have to consider the makeup of the Senate during Edwards' tenure there.
Even with the thin majority we have now, Dems haven't been able to do much other than bottle up bills in committee and obstruct. After the election things should start changing for the better.

[evekendall]

(continued)

The test of a valid argument is to turn it on its head and see if it still makes sense. You asked: "Is it natural for Blacks to support a Black candidate? Even if the Black candidate is not really better than the White candidate?" Let's turn that statement on its head: "Is it natural for Women to support a Woman candidate? Even if the Woman candidate is not really better than the Black candidate?" The perception of some people is that Hillary's female supporters think all females should support her for the sole reason that she is a female and because they want a woman in the White House. Does that make any more sense than what you are charging? No. Nevertheless, whether one candidate is "better than" the other candidate is usually a matter of the voters' values and information and the candidates' performance. This is not about voters trying to "compensate" blacks because our country has never had a black president, any more than it is about voters trying to "compensate" women because our country has never had a female president. Each voter votes his or her preference and our democratic process produces a winner. That is what is happening. There is no conspiracy against Hillary Clinton, as there is no conspiracy against Barack Obama. We must come together in the end if we are to make progress. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.