In the past I have dogeared a number of Pages (columns by Clarence Page, that is) as good examples of the thinking (or lack thereof) of mainstream liberal columnists/talking heads. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.) Today’s column, however, goes so far beyond his earlier attempts that I’m tempted to characterize it not as political analysis but humor, intended or otherwise.
Here are some Page pontifications from today:
Obama’s weak appeal to blue-collar voters is tied to his other liability, his newness on America’s political stage. Lower-income voters tend to be the least knowledgeable of “the skinny kid with the funny name,” as Obama cheerfully introduced himself during his Senate campaign. In his presidential campaign, they have been the most likely to believe the false rumors that he is a Muslim, refuses to salute the flag, hangs out with radicals and doesn’t appreciate the values of people who work hard for a living.
False rumors? Isn’t that redundant? If a rumor is true, is it really a rumor? Oh, never mind. But is this really a list of “false rumors”? Let’s start with the failure to salute the flag, from a rumor-tracing site:
Summary of the eRumor:
A picture of Senator Barack Obama [omitted here], Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Hillary Clinton, and one other person all on a platform and backed by an American flag. The eRumor says that the National Anthem was being played at the time and that all but Senator Obama saluted.
The Truth:
The picture is authentic. It was published in Time magazine and was taken 9/16/07 at an event in Indianola, Iowa where six Democratic presidential candidates appeared. It was Iowa Senator Tom Harkin’s annual “meat and greet.” The fourth person in the picture is Senator Harkin’s wife, Ruth. Not seen in the picture are three other candidates who were standing out of view on the right side of the platform, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator John Edwards, Senator Joe Biden.
At question is what was going on with Senator Obama? His critics are circulating the picture and saying that he is not respecting the flag or the National Anthem, especially since the protocol, according to the United States Flag code, is that civilians should have their right hands over their hearts and that they should be facing the flag. His supporters are saying that this little lapse should not be held against him since there have been plenty of other events at which he has saluted the flag—so it did not mean that he would, in principle, avoid doing it.
Some supporters have suggested that perhaps the picture does not tell the whole story and that he may have raised his hand shortly after it was taken.
An ABC News video, however, shows that Senator Obama did not salute at any time during the Anthem and that everybody else on the platform did.
A spokesperson for the Senator told Fox News that it was ridiculous to suggest that Obama was making any kind of a statement and that sometimes “he does and sometimes he doesn’t place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.”
Moving on, what about “hangs out with radicals”? Is Bill Ayers not a radical? Isn’t it fair to say that Obama has hung out with him, inasmuch as Ayers has hosted a fundraiser for him, they served on the board of a lefty foundation together, etc.?
As for the “false rumor” that Obama “doesn’t appreciate the values of people who work hard for a living,” perhaps Page regards Obama’s “bitter/cling” put-down as a form of appreciation.
Here’s another Page:
Obama’s awareness of that cultural gap probably explains why he’s taken to wearing his American flag lapel pin again. It may be a small thing to him intellectually, as he has said, but it does a lot to shatter some of the false Internet-fed impressions about him that have been allowed to grow and harden in some neighborhoods.
No doubt Obama’s deciding to wear a flag lapel pin, after he’s been denounced for a long time by many whose votes his needs, will reassure those voters that his earlier principled refusal to wear one was no big deal. That aside, I wonder if Page makes a distinction between “false rumors” and “false Internet-fed impressions.”
Page’s argument would be stronger if the “false rumors” and “false Internet-led impressions” that he offers really were false.
ADDENDUM
Above I laid out what I described as Page’s “observations” on Obama being “painted” as a liberal, but I really shouldn’t have used a noun based on the verb observe.
I’m in the process of reading Steven Pinker’s The Stuff of Thought: Lanugage As A Window Into Human Nature, and Pinker’s discussion of “factive verbs” should have prevented me from saying that Page actually observes virtually anything about Obama. A factive verb, Pinker writes (p. 7),
entails that the belief attributed to the subject is true. In that way it is like the verb know and unlike the verb think. Say I have a friend Mitch who mistakenly believes that Thomas Dewey defeated Harry Truman in the 1948 presidential election. I could truthfully say Mitch thinks that Dewey defeated Truman but I couldn’t say Mitch knows that Dewey defeated Truman, because Dewey did not, in fact, defeat Truman. Mitch may think he did, but you and I know he didn’t. For the same reason I couldn’t honestly say Mitch has admitted, discovered, observed, remembered, showed … that Dewey defeated Truman.
Thus I shouldn’t have said Page observed that Obama is a cultural conservative, because you and I know that he isn’t.
>>>”The Truth:
The picture is authentic. It was published in Time magazine and was taken 9/16/07 at an event in Indianola, Iowa where six Democratic presidential candidates appeared. It was Iowa Senator Tom Harkin’s annual “meat and greet.” The fourth person in the picture is Senator Harkin’s wife, Ruth. Not seen in the picture are three other candidates who were standing out of view on the right side of the platform, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator John Edwards, Senator Joe Biden.
At question is what was going on with Senator Obama? His critics are circulating the picture and saying that he is not respecting the flag or the National Anthem, especially since the protocol, according to the United States Flag code, is that civilians should have their right hands over their hearts and that they should be facing the flag.”
Are you kidding me? This is what it’s come down to?
Let’s play that game, John.
According to the US FLAG CODE:
>>>”The Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem
The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.
When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.”
http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html
I didn’t see any of the people on that stage saluting in the Time Magazine picture.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem.jpg
I can’t wait until tommorrow when the RNC sends out another bulk media email out for advice on attacking Obama over nothing.
–Cobra
Hi Cobra,
“I didn’t see any of the people on that stage saluting in the Time Magazine picture.”
Come on Cobra – have a closer look at the event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o
Are you still saying the others did not salute either?
- Andrew
cobra – the real issue is that Obama is very far to the left. This is too bad, because I think he is an excellent politician and a very bright fellow. But his re-distributionist economic policies along with his naive foreign policy stances (good luck playing nice with Iran and North Korea) would make for some pretty rough times in this country. He will get challenged to a fare thee well on these issues – too bad – really – because if he as not so far to the left, he would in my view easily beat McCain.
I understand Obama. He is like many other black people, maybe most of us, and white liberals. this is how they think:
America is the worst country on earth.
most americans are too stupid to realize that.
americans are suffering and in pain but they deny it. or if they admit it, they say well that’s life and take refuge in the stupid judea/christian religion and in guns.
They need to get smart and realize they are victims of the white man’s evil system which is just as bad for them as it is for the black man.
if it was not for the white man’s evil system, there would be no suffering, everything desirable would cost one cent, everyone would have a meaningful high paying job, and the best of evreything for free.
if americans were smart, they would go and burn down the houses of rich people. They are too stupid and brainwashed to do this, they stupidly accept the fact that some people make more than they do and that life is full of disappointment and grief.
for the healing to being, americans must realize that they are victims and everything they have been told about their country, religion, and race (if they are white) is a pack of lies, and that they are the worst people that ever existed. when they accept that their nation, history, religion, and culture is disgusting and meaningless, things will get better. we will help people to realize the truth.
muslims are better than americans and christians and jews, so it is okay if they have slavery and don’t have human rights, because it is their culture and we have no right to critisize it. if muslims feel like they need to kill all the jews, we should respect their feelings.
no one has any responsibility for anything that they do, except for the white man who is responsible for everything he does and everything everyone else does.
if non westerns act badly (though they never really do)it is the white man’s fault and the white man needs to be more understanding.
the above is barely an exaggeration.
I don’t especially care about lapel pins and saluting.
Obama has back-tracked on his more inane tax ideas, and what remains is tolerable.
His foreign policy is still naive and in this case I don’t think he will back-track.
Dom – I agree that an indifference to flag pins, saluting the flag, etc., can be irrelevant trifles, although in Obama’s case we can’t be sure since so little is known of his basic values and some of his associations raise reasonable questions about them. What I was concerned with here, however, was not so much Obama’s values as Clarence Page’s wishful, willful blindness to certain unwelcome, for lack of a better term, facts.
Dom writes:
>>>”His foreign policy is still naive and in this case I don’t think he will back-track.”
Exactly what is “naive” about his foreign policy?
How would you compare Obama’s foreign policy to that of John McCain’s, which is even MORE in line with that of the Project for New American Century than President Bush’s, if you could believe that was possible. How somebody could out neo-con THAT bunch of war-mongering death cultist is beyond comprehension.
–Cobra
cobra – Look, at least so far, Obama’s foreign policy is terrifically naive. Take North Korea. Proposing to meet with them without pre-conditions is the height of naivete. And that isn’t just from an American perspective – North Korea – along with Myanmar perhaps this planet’s worst government – is absolute menace that has nothing to offer the world but a blackmail offer of nuclear weapons and a case study in how to starve its own people (this problem will get even worse in the next few years). And contrary to any liberal siren call, the DPRK’s problems are squarely and almost entirely of their own making – as both China and South Korea will attest. And nation states – from China – hardly a poster child for freedom – to all of the EU – to Japan – South Korea – you name it – have been grappling with how to deal with the DPRK – for years – all with limited or no success. Obama’s naivete is shocking – particularly because it is in my view motivated by a desire to cause America and Americans to be “liked” – the last thing that most countries want out of a superpower – they want us to do the right thing – no
matter what they may grumble and whine about. Ditto for Iran – the rest of the Middle East is scared to death of the Iranian government – not just Israel – and they are terrified at a seemingly irresistible urge of the Iranian regime (thousands of years old, one might aver) to exert hegemony by force over the region – with a very disruptive Shia influence to boot. This is not to say that we shouldn’t deal with these countries – but, as I state, most other nations want us to act through strength – as we should – and not act out of a silly emotional desire to be liked – an impulse which drives many a globalist progressive. It is something that Obama’s supporters should be concerned about – because if he wins and actually proceeds on this basis, it will embolden these bandit regimes and will cause problems that will be for intervention – and that is the last thing we need – Iraq has shown how difficult intravention is and can be. Obama needs to get practical – and junk the lefty diatribe of the professors he hangs with.
willowglenn writes:
>>>”Look, at least so far, Obama’s foreign policy is terrifically naive. Take North Korea. Proposing to meet with them without pre-conditions is the height of naivete. And that isn’t just from an American perspective – North Korea – along with Myanmar perhaps this planet’s worst government – is absolute menace that has nothing to offer the world but a blackmail offer of nuclear weapons and a case study in how to starve its own people (this problem will get even worse in the next few years). And contrary to any liberal siren call, the DPRK’s problems are squarely and almost entirely of their own making – as both China and South Korea will attest.”
That’s a rather myopic view considering that the United States HAS engaged in talks with North Korea, with the “face-saving” cover of multi-lateralism.
Willowglenn, you DO remember recent events, correct?
>>>”North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North’s foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.
Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.
“The United States says that after Iraq, we are next”, said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, “but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US.”
His comments came on a day when tension was apparent in Pyongyang, with an air-raid drill that cleared the city’s streets and the North’s announcement that it has begun full-scale operations at the Yongbyon nuclear plant, the suspected site of weapons-grade plutonium production.
Since reopening the plant in December, the North has kicked out international inspectors and withdrawn from the global treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.”
–The Guardian, Thursday February 6 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/06/usa.northkorea
>>>”The Bush administration delivered a secret message to North Korea yesterday warning it to back down from a promised nuclear test, and it said publicly that the United States would not live with a nuclear-armed Pyongyang government.
North Korea “can have a future or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both,” Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill said yesterday in remarks at Johns Hopkins University’s U.S.-Korea Institute. It was the toughest response yet from the Bush administration, coming two days after Pyongyang announced plans to conduct its first nuclear test.
Hill did not explain how the administration would respond to a test, but he said it is willing to sit with North Korean officials and diplomats from the region to discuss the crisis. “We will do all we can to dissuade [North Korea] from this test,” he said. State Department officials said Hill is considering a trip to Asia to discuss options with key allies.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100400278.html
Of COURSE the Bush Administration didn’t start a NUCLEAR WAR on the Korean Penninsula after receiving threats from the North Koreans, and ENGAGED IN DIPLOMACY with the DRPK. But if you listen to the right wingers and neo-cons lately, you would believe it was the WRONG decision…that we should’ve launched air strikes against them, leading to an apocalypse in the Pacific rim that would have dire ramifications for the World.
Willowglenn writes:
>>>”And nation states – from China – hardly a poster child for freedom – to all of the EU – to Japan – South Korea – you name it – have been grappling with how to deal with the DPRK – for years – all with limited or no success. Obama’s naivete is shocking – particularly because it is in my view motivated by a desire to cause America and Americans to be “liked” – the last thing that most countries want out of a superpower – they want us to do the right thing – no”
What is the problem you people have with diplomacy? Negotiations? Talking to people? Here’s another update for you:
>>>”The U.S.-Vietnam relationship has expanded in an impressive number of areas since we re-established diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995. President Bush’s trip to Hanoi in November 2006 for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting and President Triet’s visit to Washington in June 2007 reflect the advances in our relationship. Problems remain, especially in the area of human rights. Overall, we have made broad progress on issues where our interests coincide, as well as in our ability to engage candidly on the areas where we differ. Continued engagement with Vietnam is clearly in U.S. interests.”
http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/03/102143.htm
That’s the Bush Administration AGAIN…following up on the Clinton Adminstrations reinstatement of diplomatic ties to VIETNAM, Willow.
Vietnam!?!?
>>>”Ditto for Iran – the rest of the Middle East is scared to death of the Iranian government – not just Israel – and they are terrified at a seemingly irresistible urge of the Iranian regime (thousands of years old, one might aver) to exert hegemony by force over the region – with a very disruptive Shia influence to boot. This is not to say that we shouldn’t deal with these countries – but, as I state, most other nations want us to act through strength – as we should – and not act out of a silly emotional desire to be liked – an impulse which drives many a globalist progressive.”
The problem with your Iran scenario is that the US Government has had a dark, schizophrenic history with this nation:
>>>”1953 : The U.S. organized a coup that overthrew a democratic government in Iran. Mohammed Mossedeq wanted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company. (Britain controlled the oil through colonial policy, Iranians were not benefitting from the oil revenues) The U.S. wrote a cold-war script, and through the CIA, (in a mission led by Kermit Roosevelt and Norman Schwartzkopf, Sr.) toppled Mossedeq and brought in the Shah of Iran.
The Shah established Iran as “client state” of the U.S. and kept dissidents under control with the hated Savak, a secret police that used CIA information to brutally persecute and murder dissidents.
In 1972, as part of the “Nixon doctrine” of using military police instead of U.S. troops to shore up U.S. role around the world, a policy that developed from fallout from Vietnam war, Kissinger gave wide latitude and more CIA assistance to the Shah.
Iran used the following military build-up to keep population under control, and the Savak grew in power. The Shah provided U.S. access to military bases and intelligence facilities, helping the U.S. to control flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to U.S. trading partners.
In reaction to the Shah’s rule, reformers were attracted to the ulama, the clerical class, who were relatively independent of the regime. Thus U.S. policy, which attacked the secular left as Soviet sympathizers or threats to oil interests, strengthened the political power and sophistication of the ulama.
Repression led to the first major growth of Islamic fundamentalism. Shiite cleric Ayatollah Khomeini instilled in his followers a hatred for all things Western. In 1979, students took over the U.S. embassy, claiming it was a base for CIA repression. Khomeini launched a “holy war” against U.S. outposts.
In 1985, despite a strict official policy of refusing to cut deals with terrorists, the Reagan administration illegally aided Iranian fundamentalists, trading arms for hostages. While Iran used these arms in its war with Iraq, money from the sales funded U.S. support for the Contras in their war against Nicaragua’s revolutionary government. Such aid was specifically prohibited by Congress in the 1984 Boland Amendment.”
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/websites/hist.htm
Sorry that was a long piece, but history is important if we want to understand what is occuring today.
There is a HISTORY to this conflict, Willow, that doesn’t get discussed or talked about enough. The simplistic “Bomb-bomb-bomb-bombbomb Iran”, (or any other non-white or non-Christian country with natural resources you wish to insert) might sound great on the barstool, or hate radio, but it’s a path to DISASTER, if these last 8 years have taught us anything.
>>>”It is something that Obama’s supporters should be concerned about – because if he wins and actually proceeds on this basis, it will embolden these bandit regimes and will cause problems that will be for intervention – and that is the last thing we need – Iraq has shown how difficult intravention is and can be. Obama needs to get practical – and junk the lefty diatribe of the professors he hangs with.”
So given the history…where Eisenhower signed off on a COUP of and installed a puppet, Nixon gave that puppet fangs, Reagan gave the ISLAMIC REGIME that overthrew the puppet TOW Missiles, and the sitting Vice President did THIS…
>>>”As investigators from 60 Minutes discovered, Halliburton has used an offshore subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands (where the company has no oil and gas construction or engineering operations) to trade with Iran, a country that the Bush administration has described as part of an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”2
Federal law disallows American companies from transacting business with nations that sponsor terrorism, but foreign subsidiaries of such companies are not banned from such transactions. In May 2004, the U.S. Senate voted against legislation that would have stopped companies like Halliburton from using offshore subsidiaries to invest in Iran. The legislation was defeated in a 50-49 vote, mostly along party lines.
As CEO of Halliburton, Mr. Cheney lobbied the Clinton administration to ease sanctions on Libya and Iran, according to various news reports. “I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions [on Iran], didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies .. trying to do business there,” Cheney told an Australian television interviewer in April 1998.3
According to the Financial Times, before he was elected (but after he resigned from Halliburton) Cheney “has said the company is allowed to operate legally in Iran through its foreign subsidiaries.”4 “What we do with respect to Iran and Libya is done through foreign subsidiaries, totally in compliance with US law,” Cheney told ABC Television’s Sam Donaldson. When Donaldson suggested, “it’s a way around US law,” Cheney replied: “No, no, it’s provided for us specifically with respect to Iran and Libya.”5 If you’re a big multinational that’s able to incorporate around the world, you don’t have to worry.”
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/iran.html
Come on, Willow.
After this walk down memory lane, you’re going to claim Obama is “naive” for wanting to engage in DIPLOMACY with Iran, instead of the black bag coups, support of oppression, weapons trading and mercenary capitalism that the US has engaged them with in PREVIOUS administrations?
Are you that eager to just join the McCain/Neo-con THIRD WAR in ’09 Express?
–Cobra
Cobra – you aren’t getting it. The point of comparison isn’t McCain or Bush, but Hillary Clinton. She has it right. She doesn’t rule out discussion, but she also reflects the realpolitik. The shame of it all is that Obama is smarter than this – but surrounds himself with too many lefties – which is why he has taken a silly gaffe of a statement over meeting with rogue nations without conditions and has morphed into a policy. How silly, and destructive. And it is not me you should argue with – this should be, given the mediocrity of the Republicans and the Bush administration, an easy victory for the Dems. But you can bet that the Republicans will just be all over Obama for this policy, and will just cream him over it. Again, what a shame – he has had plenty of opportunity to backtrack. And supporters such as yourself ought to be asking him to do it now – because he will be forced later.
willowglenn writes:
>>>”But you can bet that the Republicans will just be all over Obama for this policy, and will just cream him over it. Again, what a shame – he has had plenty of opportunity to backtrack. And supporters such as yourself ought to be asking him to do it now – because he will be forced later.”
Don’t get me wrong, Willow. Republicans were going to run on the “National Defense/Protect America/bomb the “swarthy- heathen-hordes-from-the-Middle-East” strategy REGARDLESS of who the Democrat running would be.
Do you HONESTLY think, that the machine that Swiftboated and smeared decorated Vietnam veterans like John Kerry and Max Cleland were going to take a pass on painting Hillary as weak on defense with the same brush?
C’mon, Willow.
>>>”But you can bet that the Republicans will just be all over Obama for this policy, and will just cream him over it.”
We should WELCOME and ENCOURAGE this debate. I think that FINALLY, after EIGHT long years of abominable losses of blood and treasure over BUSH’S Foreign policies, which John McCain wants to unashamedly CONTINUE, we can finally have an OPEN debate about the abject failure of the Neo-conservative movement and the Project for the New American Century.
Look at the news of the past few days, Willow:
>>>”At last. The largely character-driven race for the White House has a full-throated policy dispute, this one between John McCain and Barack Obama: Should a president talk to terrorists or terror-backing states? Americans may be scratching their heads, however, as to exactly where these candidates stand on this primal security issue.
So far, the dispute consists mainly of sound bites, even though it isn’t rhetorical. Israel, for example, admitted Wednesday it is in talks with Syria. And that comes despite US objections and despite Syria’s support of two groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, that purposely shower rockets on Israeli civilians.
And strangely, Israel’s announcement came a week after President Bush told Israeli lawmakers that anyone who negotiates with “terrorists and radicals” has fallen for the same “false comfort of appeasement” as did Neville Chamberlain in 1938 with Hitler.
But lest anyone think Israel has gone wobbly on terror, its talks with archfoe Syria were in process months ago when Israeli jets destroyed a secret nuclear plant in Syria. Israel also attacks Hamas fighters in Gaza even as it negotiates (through Egypt) for a truce.
Israel’s example of talking softly and carrying a big stick may well serve this US campaign debate.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0523/p08s01-comv.html
Israel talks to Syria, an Axis of Evil member??!? Are THEY being naive and irresponsible, Willow?
No, Willow. You make sound points about how the Republican attack machine will smear Obama. There isn’t a CONSCIOUS African-American alive who didn’t anticipate the vicious, gutteral and outrageous lashing ANY Black candidate for President would face if he reached this level. This is America, remember? The marriage of his white mother and his Kenyan father would’ve been ILLEGAL in many Southern states when it happened. We live in a country where people in Kentucky Primary exit polls openly admit that:
>>>” One in five white voters said race influenced their choice of a candidate — and those voters were strongly behind the New York senator (Clinton).”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5giZDjUrVk9p4HpVouqLhFbdtXTYAD90PP24O0
But I’ve got news for you. The majority of Americans are sick of George W. Bush and the neo-con Pax Americana jackasses that infest his administration.
Now, there certainly is a large enough MINORITY of people who, usually from the safety of their living rooms, advocates bombing and killing anybody who disagrees with them, and choosing hasty war over patient negotiation. I’d bet that there are far too many here in this country that estimate the value of a human life by race, creed or religion. I’d hazard to guess that there are people who think rash military acts have little or no consequences, and everything can be resolved quickly akin to some third-rate Mini-series or docudrama.
I’d wager some of those types hang out on this blog.
But if John McCain is perceived as being a third Bush term, and he’s walking in lockstep with him recently, the right winged attacks on Obama will roll off him like water on the slanted tarp.
This Obama supporter don’t need or expect a landslide. The vote caging, intimidation, electronic voting machines and Karl Rove voter suppression tactics will be out in force for this one, believe you me.
This election will tell a story about America for all the world to witness.
–Cobra
Page suffers from a common problem among liberals / lefties. He both uses language and understands the world in code. In liberal code, “rumors” and “false” reflect what they believe should not be important, not what is or is not factual.