Translation of Lieberman's "Obama's a good young man" phrase.

[Colobo]

"Obama is a good BOY".

[cbc5g]

1. a 47 year old is a young man? Let me guess, 72 is middle age?

Is he fucking nuts trying to play daddy?

[Drunken Irishman]

2. I don't see it that way.

It's a subtle jab at his experience and that's all it is. They want to paint Obama as a young, inexperienced candidate and these words do just that.

[Colobo]

4. Based on what McCain has showed us, he's also playing the race card.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. I don't think this is the race card.

It's the experience card.

He's doing it to drive home the message Obama is not experienced enough to lead. Calling him a young man over and over again does this.

[nomorenomore08]

11. But by implication, "inexperienced" = "incompetent."

And sadly, I think there's still a not-insignificant minority of Americans who believe, whether the belief is a fully conscious one or not, that a black man is not competent to lead the nation.

So when right-wingers (and Lieberman has now become one for the most part) make these insinuations about Obama, it often amounts to what's known as a "dog whistle" - that is, something that sounds innocuous to most people, but has a different meaning for a specific audience.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. I think if Obama were white, they'd be doing the same thing.

Obama is unlike any presidential candidate we have seen in a very long time and no, I don't mean because he's black. I mean because he has little exposure to the national scene. This is a guy who has been senator for only a few years and only four years ago was entirely unknown. McCain understands this and that's why he will go after Obama on experience, just as Clinton did.

Is it stupid? Sure, but not racist.

[nomorenomore08]

17. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Either way, it's simply a tool to undermine Obama

in any possible manner. I knew the GOP would be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama, and so far I've been proven right.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. I agree, it's a stupid attack.

And it should be called out as such. McCain obviously doesn't want to debate the issues because he knows he'll lose. Lieberman and all his goons will continue using this talking point until November, knowing they don't have a chance if it becomes an issues debate.

The question now is: How can we return it to an issues debate?

[styersc]

18. I hope that you are not trying to say that it is impossible to

disagree with a minority politician without being a racist. I have many disagreements with political leaders of all races- over issues not pigment.

The argument against Obama's lack of accomplishments and experience is nothing new. The accuracy makes it difficult to defend against so Obama has to convince the voting public that he has innate abilities and strong positions. This will never happen if evdery time someone argues against him his supporters scream racism. (Note I refere to his supporters as I have never heard him scream "racism" just a small but vocal subset of his supporters).

[nomorenomore08]

20. If Obama were running against a competent, legimitate GOP candidate, I'd agree with you.

And if the current Republican Party wasn't so pathetic and worthless (and harmful to the public good), I'd agree with you even more. But given the situation we have today, anyone who would choose McCain over Obama is just begging to be scrutinized. In my mind, the contrast between the two is so stark and obvious, that what else but racism could lead to pulling the lever for a man who essentially amounts to Bush III?

Disagree with whoever you want to, and Lord knows I don't agree with Obama on everything. But he's the best we've got right now, and it's not remotely close.

[styersc]

24. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

If the GOP had put up a candidate that you think is better then it would be OK to question Obama's age and experience?

I don't get it. Obama is Obama regardless of who he runs against. If Obama wants to run a campaign that says, "I'm young with little experience but I'm better then the other guy" then it is a sure loser.

Obama had better demostrate to the American voter that he has innate talent and a strong, progressive agenda that is best for our future of he is toast. Fence sitters will flock to seemingly harmless McCain over risky obama is Obama is not successful in selling a strong, confident message.

he is damaging himself by so many "position realignments" that have him blowing with the wind.

[nomorenomore08]

27. But the whole point is that McCain is seen as "harmless," while Obama isn't.

Think for a moment about why that is, considering McCain's instability and relentless warmongering. For all that, he still isn't as scary (to a lot of people) as the specter of the "scary black man." THAT's where the racial aspect comes in.

Questioning Obama's experience is fine, but when he's the one being endlessly questioned, despite being obviously far more competent than McCain, you have to wonder about the bias at work.

[styersc]

31. So you are saying that if the Dem's had run a white candidate

with Obama's very same resume' that the GOP would not be running a campaign questioning his lack of experience?

[nomorenomore08]

33. I'm sure they would, but the difference is, I don't know if it would have as much traction.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if Obama WERE white, he'd be up solid double digits against McCain. Since the same embedded cultural biases wouldn't be at work, the GOP would have less ammunition.

[BlooInBloo]

9. We never do.

[nomorenomore08]

12. Agreed. When people give "the benefit of the doubt," often it's because they don't have

a learned reason for distrust that others might. That's why the political "dog whistle" perfected by Reagan and others works so well - because most people don't realize what's really being said, and don't see the sinister meaning behind it.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose...

[BlooInBloo]

14. It's not ignorance. It's deliberate toeing the line.

EDIT: Subject typo.

[nomorenomore08]

16. A little from Column A, a little from Column B.

But the important thing is that both allow shady shit to go on unchecked.

[liberalmuse]

3. That's condescending.

And the McCain campaign along with his MSM talk about 'Ageism'. It works both ways.

[Barack_America]

25. It is undoubtedly condescending...

But to make the leap and assume it is racist would be a biiiig mistake.

[nomorenomore08]

5. Yeah, there is something a little creepy about referring to a 47-year-old man that way.

Add in Obama's skin color, and you really have to wonder about intent. Seems almost along the lines of calling him "articulate."

[Bonobo]

7. We know. It is obvious. nt

[lapfog_1]

8. "Obama's a good young man" and "Obama is well spoken"...

translation:

he can be a house n***er and not a field n***er.

[Colobo]

10. Exactly.

[C_U_L8R]

13. Next to evil old farts like McKKKain and LIEberman

we're all good young men

[MonkeyFunk]

21. I disagree

and I think interpreting everything as a racial comment would be a losing strategy for Obama.

[nomorenomore08]

23. So the same conservative movement that's built its power base on racism (and other "isms")

for decades, should now suddenly be given the benefit of the doubt? Jumping at shadows is one thing, but I just don't trust anything that comes out of any right-wing politician/pundit's mouth. Call it "guilty until proven innocent" if you want, but people have reasons for being suspicious.

But for the record, I agree that it would be best for Obama not to take the bait.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Because I don't think Lieberman

was trying to make a veiled racial slur by calling him a "young man". I think you really have to go out of your way to perceive it that way.

But then, I think a lot of people here go out of their way to "find" racism in the most innocent comments.

[nomorenomore08]

29. I don't know... I can't read Lieberman's mind any more than you can.

But whatever the intent of his remark, it does seem to be part of a pattern that's not exactly innocent.

Call it guilt by association, or whatever you want. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...

[MonkeyFunk]

30. going after Obama on experience

is an obvious tactic, and it would happen regardless of what color he is.

To say referring to him as a "young man" is code for "boy" is just silly.

[elkston]

36. Realize this.

Racially insensitive remarks are not always calculated affairs. In this case I don't think that Lieberman was sitting there figuring out some sly way to play the race card on Obama.

Rather, he truly believed he was giving Obama some form of compliemnt, but his own ignorance of the black experience produced a rather partronizing and condescending statement.

Obama is 47 years old. "Young man", in one sense, is a swipe at his perceived lack of experience. But it also serves to strip Obama of his manhood and his legitimacy to run for President.

EDIT: In hindsight, Lieberman did add that Obama might provide "leadership for America in the years ahead". I revise my statement. I don't think he believes Obama is incapable of being Pres. -- he just doesn't think he's ready right now.

The "young man" stuff was still not appropriate, though.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. Exactly

managing to get in "uppity black guy" and "inexperienced, callow youth" in one swell feep.

[Barack_America]

28. Don't bite...

That was thrown out there to get folks crying racism, so McCain and co. can play the victim again.

[Madam Mossfern]

32. We should all be wearing tee shirts with

a photo of Obama and "A good young man" under it.
Turn it around on them.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Patronizing, condescending little fuck. Couldn't just say he's a good man.

Had to diminish him. I sincerely wish that Joe Lieberman...no...I can't say it out loud. Wouldn't be prudent.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. For shame, and after Obama bent over backwards for AIPAC

I guess the good Senator from Illinois will have to give them even more...

As for your principal contention, it's bellyaching bullshit. Lieberman is a fundamentalist panty-waist Orthodox nut with a huge ego and blinkered allegiance to Israel, but I see no evidence of him being a racist against anyone but perhaps Arabs and Persians.

Crying wolf on the race issue is very dangerous and I hope it doesn't become the norm; if so, we will surely lose and there won't be any "I told you so" pyrrhic victory in somehow "proving" an insurmountable anti-black prejudice in this country. Yes, bigotry exists, but I don't think it's of a degree to deny a good candidate of the presidency. As far as I can tell, this country is ready and willing to elect a Black, a Woman, an Hispanic, and an Asian. On the other hand, I don't think its ready to vote for a Muslim, a Morman, a Jew and most DEFINITELY not a non-religious person. Obama's increasing problems come principally from two sources: an entrenched, reactionary corporatism that isn't slaked even by his appeasement and increasing dismay about his credibility and sense.

These, like your assumptions, are unsubstantiated and anecdotal.

Why Lieberman is saying this is very puzzling: Obama's given Israel as much as the reactionaries have in the way of promises; either he doesn't believe him or his ego is driving him to continue being a contrarian. His civil rights record is very strong, and I don't think it's just window-dressing.