Update: Apologies to the commenters – I deleted the wrong extra copy of the post, and it took your comments with it. I’ll see if I can recover them.
Van Riper is the author of one of my favorite phrases – “in command and out of control” – which defines the kind of management style that community-based enterprises require.
Obama’s campaign tripped pretty hard this week when they forcibly evicted a volunteer who had – over two+ years and on his own dime – built the unofficial Obama MySpace page into one with 160,000 friends.
The story is pretty well told over at Micah Sifry’s blog.
There’s an astounding amount of vituperation aimed at the volunteer – a L.A. paralegal named Joe Anthony – in the comments and on the blogs.
There’s also a strong thread of anger at Obama’s campaign.
From my POV it would have been an easy problem to solve – assign a junior staffer to work with Anthony and assist with the workload (he’s got a day job, and running a site that popular starts burning hours), give him invites to some high-roller events here and a chance to have coffee with the Senator…et la, problem solved.
Instead, the campaign has bout itself far more than $44,000 worth of negative publicity, which was amateurish and stupid.
And we learn that in spite of the communitarian face on modern campaigns, they are still probably too centrally run. The problem, of course, is how to combine the ‘do your own thing’ ethos of Campaign 2.0 with the media microscope. A two-pipe problem, but one that could have been easily avoided here.
I’ve complimented Obama in the past, but no points to his team for this one, I’m afraid…
Latest Media Coverage of Obama MySpace Story
Excerpts and links from the New York Times, TechPresident, Washington Post and Huffington Post
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/obama-myspace-joe-anthony-day-2-latest.html
There is now a “Do The Right Thing, Barack”:http://dotherightthingbarack.blogspot.com/ blog up about this issue. It is for people upset about how Obama’s campaign has handled this MySpace issue with Joe Anthony.
A.L.,
This is a “what were they thinking” moment for the Obama campaign.
One of the big trends that is changing the nature of competition in our society is the growth of self-organizing communities on the Internet. At the core of these communities are dedicated individuals who act as seed crystals to catalyze the reaction of the larger public. People such as Linus Torvalds (Linux) or Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia) or Craig Newmark (Craigslist) or, on a smaller scale, Joe Anthony.
Sen. Obama’s campaign staff doesn’t appear to grasp the full power of these grass roots efforts and their related monetary value. My suspicion is that it’s a combination of NIH (not invented here) syndrome and Joe’s status as a NPCC (not part of the consultant’s club).
Any political consultant who could deliver a list of 160,000 names and e-mail addresses of self-identified supporters would charge considerably more than $.30 per name.
Joe’s NPCC status is probably why they didn’t just hire him as a Web media staffer and Internet community organizer. The Obama campaign has plenty of money. The campaign organization should be growing at double-digit rates as they build the infrastructure to support a multi-year run for the Presidency. Joe Anthony appears to be the kind of dedicated, Web-savvy person they would hire in a heart beat. But, no, he’s just a super-volunteer so screw him! He’ll work for Obama for free.
This is not a good indicator for the quality of Sen. Obama’s campaign staff. It may also indicate Sen. Obama’s real attitude toward “the little people.”
On his own dime? Wow, the monthly hosting costs at myspace must have really gone through the roof!
The guy was blackmailing the campaign for big bucks, a heck of a lot more than the guy could possibly have invested in the “site” and I say “site” because we are talking about Myspace here. A 12 year old could have produced the site.
Legally, Obama was in the right as has been determined in lawsuits over domain names again and again over the years.
He claims to have put 5 to 10 hours a day, every single day, into a Myspace page??
I’m sorry, but 40 grand is a bit ridiculous. If he’s unhappy, take them to court. He’ll lose, but at least he can say he tried. But good luck finding a lawyer who’ll take that case on a contingency.
But in fact, he didn’t get anywhere near 160,000 until the Obama campaign began directing traffic to his page from the MySpace presidential election channel.
Prior to that he only had 30,000 friends.
And additionally, he might want to consider the fact that Cybersquatting is illegal. I’m not sure if it would apply to a myspace page but regardless, Obama would win in a civil suit.
Look, I’d love to make 49,000 off 4 months of part time work and no hosting costs as well. But I wouldn’t be suprised when the client laughed in my face.
davebo, it doesn’t sound like cybersquatting when the Obama campaign was directing traffic to his myspace.
This seems like a classic joint venture where the two parties grew to develop different expectations about the relationship. Its normal in those cases for one party to buy out the other. Its hard to figure out what intangible joint ventures are worth, you’d have to ask an accountant and then another one and another one . . .
The Obama campaign asked for a figure; they didn’t appear annoyed by the idea until they saw the figure. They don’t appear to have presented a counter-offer, just started dissing him.
PD Shaw.
We can argue whether or not politically the campaign made the right move, but legally, the guy was in violation of several of MySpace terms of use rules.
He violated one rule the moment he gave the Obama campaign the username and password for the site.
Additionally, when he registered the site with Myspace he violated another.
To register the site as “myspace.com/barackobama” didn’t he have to give that as his actual name?
And the campaign never entered into an agreement with him in any way nor did they ever offer compensation for his work.
Again, perhaps a tin ear politically, but wholly within the campaign’s and Myspace’s rights legally.
I don’t know much about My Space, but are you telling me that this guy here is not actually the “President of the United States?”:http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=243832
I can’t get excited about My Space violations that the Obama campaign knew about, participated in, or encouraged.
Question: If the Obama campaign had the password, didn’t they also have access to the list of names?
Davebo, we all violate TOS all the time in relatively benign ways – as this was.
Legally, yes, he had no leg to stand on – MySpace rules are clear on that.
Politically, the campaign stepped in it bigtime. Filling this hole will easily cost them 10x what he asked for, and probably 20 or 30x what he would have settled for.
And as noted in the original post, there was a solution that would have worked well for everyone.
Stupid, stupid move by the campaign. And amusing gratuitous nastiness aimed at the guy.
A.L.
I don’t know AL.
If I’m looking at a 1999 used Taurus and the owner opens up with a price of 30 thousand dollars I wouldn’t bother making a counter offer.
The My Space page was worth what it was worth to Obama to have the names and the goodwill of the guy who assembled it. Here’s a guess:
bq. _I don’t think the list of 160,000 members, now that I’ve actually got a experienced-based opinion, is worth $44K, but *it’s worth $20K.* MySpace is a very unique social networking site, and they are highly branded to their space. Of the 20-30 blog posts I read on the topic as culled from technorati, about 70% of them thought Obama wronged Joe, 20% of them thought it was sad for both parties, and only 10% supported Obama’s actions. Based on that, I’ll be surprised if Obama gets back to his original numbers without a heavy investment (like $25-50K) in outreach across MySpace. I also even wonder if it’s worth it. These sites are word-of-mouth water-cooler talking places._
“My DD”:http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/3/162736/1827
I don’t agree that this is a bungle by Barak Obama’s team.
First, the candidate is living out his values, which obviously involve him and his professionals having top-down control, excluding independents and punishing them with lies. That’s not a mistake, it’s a value judgement.
Second, he may be right, and these may be the winning values. The electoral power of the Internet is highly rated by those who spend a lot of time on it, but its values may not be those prevailing in the electorate at large. And often, the values people say they want are not those they really do want and will vote for. That’s why politicians in general lie – they have to, the voters in effect require it. (There’s no conservative / liberal divide on that, either. It’s die or die, at the polls.)
Thirdly, Barak Obama doesn’t have to be perfect, he just has to be better than the competition, which is not hard. If he sticks to his own style, which is in keeping with the larger voter base rather than the net-heads, and is still better than any competition in cyberspace, which he may be, that’s perfect.
I will say that I was impressed by his foresight and audacity in requesting Secret Service protections — and getting it — a year and a half out from the polls. That really makes a statement people will hear: the Justice Department thinks this guy is likely enough to be the next President that they’ll spend money and risk lives guarding him. Not his competitors, him.
Except Sen. Clinton, of course, but it’s a loser for her because her detail is just because she’s a former First Lady. She’d have had it anyway.
I think partly this goes to Mr. Blue’s good point: it speaks to his values, too. It would never have occured to me to request Secret Service protections (absent a threat, as Justice says) one minute before the law required them. But Obama is not just smart enough to see the benefit — he’s willing to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to make a statement about how important he is.
Impressive.
Grim…wow, lot’s of presumptions there (all negative, interestingly) about Obama’s SS request. It’s possible, even likely, that he has received some credible threats. After all, you got Limbaugh out there fanning the racist flames over this guy already…sad.
Perhaps it will seem less like a presumption if I “cite the source”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_el_pr/obama_secret_service directly.
bq. Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren and Department of Homeland Security officials said they were not aware of any threats to the Illinois senator.
Although, I’ve reached the age where I never feel the need to apologize for making a negative presumption about the motives of a Senator.
You’re still unjustly accusing him of wasting taxpayers money to make some presumed “political statement”. Its a weak, meritless point. Save your cynicism for those who are more deserving (i.e., Republicans).
This account has more details:
(CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, has been placed under the protection of the Secret Service, the agency said Thursday.
The government is not aware of any specific, credible threat against Obama, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the decision. But the campaign has received hate mail, calls and other “threatening materials” in the past and during his campaign, the source said.
Three Obama campaign officials who discussed the issue on condition of anonymity also said there was no specific threat against the candidate.
They said the request stemmed from what one called the “cumulative effect” of a heavier campaign schedule, larger crowds and “just the growing perception internally” that it was time to take additional security precautions that are best suited for the Secret Service.
A Department of Homeland Security representative also told CNN there is no known specific or credible threat.
Two Democratic Senate sources, who also stressed there was no particular threat, later told CNN that Illinois’ senior senator, Democrat Dick Durbin, had relayed concerns to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
They said Reid decided to take the matter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as an issue for a congressional advisory panel. There were further discussions with the campaign, the sources said, and the official request was made.
Chertoff works with the advisory panel, which is made up of half a dozen members of Congress, including Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The Chicago Tribune originally reported the Durbin-Reid involvement.
The Secret Service said in a written statement that Chertoff, “after consultation with the congressional advisory committee, authorized the United States Secret Service to protect presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama.”
Protection goes beyond surrounding the candidate with well-armed agents, the Secret Service’s Web site states. The agency does extensive advance work and threat assessments developed by its Intelligence Division to identify potential risks, the site says.
“As a matter of procedure, we will not release any details of the deliberations of assessments that led to protection being initiated,” the service’s statement said.
So, according to even CNN’s unnamed sources, there was actually no threat. There was, however, some hate mail.
Look, the guy can hire whatever security he wants for his campaign. Getting a Secret Service detail is spending taxpayer dollars, rather than his own dollars, to get world-class protection from no particular threat.
This isn’t about protecting the man. It’s about making the point: ‘I merit Secret Service protection. Even a year before the primaries. That’s how serious and important a candidate I am.’
As for spending my disdain on Republican politicians, I assure you that I have enough to go around.
That’s bull, Grim. Calls and threatening mail also. See where it also says that the SS cannot disclose specifics? They ask some government guy and he says “I’m not aware of any threats” and that’s what the sentence means, nothing more.
Plus, although a little vague, the article indicates that Reid and Durbin initiated the request.
I also don’t see where your alleged positive political angle comes in to play…if anything, this kind of news can be negative (not your interpretation, but more along the lines of “Wow, people are really out to get this guy…”).
Anyhoo…
Look, there’s only one named official from DHS, Eric Zahren. Everyone else mentioned is unnamed. All of them, however, said that they were aware of no threat. The unnamed sources actually from DHS stopped there.
CNN and others have also cited an unnamed source described as having ‘a law enforcement background.’ He went on to speculate about a ‘general feeling within the campaign’ that there might be some sort of danger. It also cited three unnamed Obama campaign members who said, again, there was no actual threat.
Every campaign gets hate mail and threatening phone calls. Every campaign also hires security to protect their candidate. That’s part of the game.
You say you can’t even see the political positive. Well, here it is, spelled out:
1) We’re a year or so out from the primaries. Right now, there are numerous candidates for president in each party. Every one of these candidates is trying to push himself out from the pack, to show that he is the one to be taken serously, and that the others are “also rans.”
2) One of the big things that every American knows about the President is this: he is protected by the Secret Service.
3) Therefore, being protected by the Secret Service is presidential. It’s also a statement that the Secret Service takes your candidacy very seriously, enough to commit men and resources to you that only serious candidates for President ever get.
4) And, you got them a year earlier than anyone else.
That’s what this is about. Obama doesn’t need Secret Service protections against hate mail and ugly phone calls — likely Clinton and McCain get just as many nasty letters. It goes with being a major political figure, and they know that.
This is about making a statement of personal importance; and about pulling himself ahead of the other candidates in the Democratic field. It was a shrewd move, and imaginative. Those are good qualities in a potential President. It was also demonstrative of a willingness to spend taxpayer money — lots of it — to make a purely political point about himself. That’s a bad thing, at least where I sit; but it’s probably a very common quality in the set of candidates we’ve got.
Rumors began circulating before Obama announced his candidacy that his wife was concerned that her husband might be assassinated. There were letters to editors about the subject. When he announced, his wife deflected the concern by saying her husband, as a black man, was just as likely to be killed at a gas station. (Kind of an odd moment for the post-racial candidacy)
Anyway, I know a lot of Illinoisians thought the whole thing was a bit staged. They were certain he was going to run, but the reluctant, selfless public servant risking his life was an act. This group assumed that he was going to get secret service protection.
The other group thought that this all proved that Obama was this generation’s Bobby Kennedy.
What is he going to do…advertise that the Secret Serice is protecting him? Have them stand on the podium while he gives speeches.
“That’s what this is about. Obama doesn’t need Secret Service protections against hate mail and ugly phone calls — likely Clinton and McCain get just as many nasty letters. It goes with being a major political figure, and they know that.”
Unless you can prove this to be true, then your entire argument is based on a vague and negative presumption about Obama. Par for the course around here I guess.
And you keep wanting to ignore the fact that only Obama has been the target of racist remarks from one of the most prominent Rightwing voices, Rush Limbaugh, who regularly incites millions of listeners toward hatred of the Democrats/Liberals and Left (“Barack the Magic Negro”…).
Grim, I read somewhere that you were from the South, where prejudice and racism against African Americans is more common. Does this have anything to do with your negative bias about Obama?
tcg, I don’t necessarily agree with Grim (or at least I think the issue has downsides too), but that last paragraph was offensive. Here is a Northerner:
bq. _“It’s a plus because he’ll look more presidential,†said Joseph LaSorsa, a 20-year Secret Service veteran who guarded President Reagan and now runs a Miami-area security agency that bears his name. “He’ll be more apt to be on time because everything is run on a schedule.â€_
“Chicago Area Paper”:http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=309375
I’m not trying to insult Grim; sorry if that’s the way it came out. I am only suggesting that social context might matter in this instance.
When I have a double post I mark one of them by putting some extra characters at the bottom. Publish. Look at the www site to find which post has the characters.
Then delete the correct one.
==================
None of these goofs running for office has the human touch.
Obama is a manufactured candidate. The Chicago machine needs all the help it can get right now.
Joe Anthony must have favored Obama’s brand of socialism at one time.
And now he is unhappy that his property got socialized? The man is an ingrate. He should be taking one for the revolution like a good socialist. Instead he exhibits bourgeios values.
Obama is better off rid of him.
I listen to Rush often. Some times I get my full 3 hours of hate.
However, I hated liberals before I started listening to Rush. Something about the aftermath of the Vietnam war.
My social philosophy is still liberal. However, I’m no longer so eager to give over allies into the hands of murderers. Plus I studied economics. That blew socialism for me.
I still have gay friends. Except now they are Republicans.
Obama just as likely to get killed at a gas station?
I never knew Malvo was gunning for him.
There’s a certain symmetry in this. We have Joe Anthony who supports a candidate who has little to zero respect for the private property of millions of his fellow citizens by proposing to confiscate even more of the fruits of their labor and is shocked that the same candidate would steal the fruits of his labor. And we have the candidate who pushes an entitlement mentality on his supporters that they have a “right†to stuff that belongs to other people only to discover that one of them thinks he has a “right†to use his name for his website.
It’s like Iran versus Iraq in the 1980’s – the only justice is for both of them to lose.
#10 from Davebo at 10:39 pm on May 03, 2007
I don’t know AL.
If I’m looking at a 1999 used Taurus and the owner opens up with a price of 30 thousand dollars I wouldn’t bother making a counter offer.
You would follow Obama’s example I’m sure. Steal it.
Only you wouldn’t call it theft. it would be more lie “socialist realism”.
Speaking as a proud Southerner, I think the truth is that prejudice against African Americans isn’t actually more common in the South; it’s just differently expressed.
For example, consider “that hate crimes are fifty times more common in Minnesota than Alabama”:http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/1493 according to official government numbers. That link is to Southern Appeal; follow their link (under “this post”) to see the actual piece. I’d link it directly, but it’s on Bl*spot. The bottom four states for race-based hate crimes are Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama. Some of that may be reporting bias — that Southern police are less likely to report race-based crimes — but all of it can’t be.
The South has certainly had severe problems with racism over the history of the country, but so has the rest of the country. It just likes to say, “The South is worse” so it can feel better. The truth is, the South is just different. We have what’s left of the KKK; but they’re not very important anymore (and in fact, the first post I ever wrote at Grim’s Hall was about how we as a culture had defeated them). My wife, who is from Indiana, tells me they’re much more successful there than here in Georgia.
So, no, I don’t think I’m particularly biased against Obama because he’s black. Or against other people who are black. Or that the South is actually worse in that regard than other places, in spite of its press.
As for your contention — that I should prove there is no threat to Obama — what precisely are you prepared to receive as evidence? Between the two of us, we’ve cited several law-enforcement or DHS speakers, and three members of Obama’s campaign, all of whom _agree there is no threat_.
If you’re unsatisfied with the fact that everyone in a position to know is unanimous on the absence of a threat, I’m not sure what else I can say. We don’t often get a unanimous opinion, one that holds among the unnamed sources as well as the people who go on the record.
I’d say it’s fair to hold that the point is proven as well as it reasonably can be. If you want to dispute the non-existence of a threat, you are the one who should produce new evidence.
Thanks, by the way, PD Shaw. I appreciate your defense, which was gallant. I’ve often encountered people who assumed that, coming from Georgia, I must be a racist; but I have rarely encountered people who would stand up for us and assert — correctly — that the assumption is offensive.
Grim–I’m not asking you to prove that there was no threat to Obama. What I am trying to do is get you realize that the reports of threats are incomplete or are being downplayed purposefully. In which case you must allow for the possibility that the threat situation for Obama could be 1) more involved than we know, and 2) greater than for other candidates (which is something that you do not seem to believe but failed to provide justification for).
I really couldn’t care less if you continue to judge Obama’s actions in a negative light, but just don’t go around pretending that these concerns are based on anything other than some vague personal dislike that has little or nothing to do with his ability to become president.
Look, trumped up concerns about petty issues that are supposed to be proxies for the “character” or “leadership” qualities of Democratic presidential candidates plaqued both of the last two elections, and I’m sick and tired of them. The media love them, seemingly because there are people out there (like you?) who do not hesitate to find silly reasons to dislike (or disdain) Democratic candidates while AT THE SAME TIME overlooking these same alleged flaws in Republican candidates.
During the Democratic debate, Limbaugh listener Brian WIlliams asked John Edwards about his haircut and quoted a letter in USA today that called Reid’s actions “treasonous”…I certainly did not hear any of the Republicans getting the same type of inane questions. Why is that? It’s because part of the game is to denigrate the Dems, make them appear foolish and weak by asking stupid, irrelevent “gotcha” questions while treating the Republican as “serious grown-ups”. (Comically, even with all the serious questions, the Repubs still couldn’t avoid saying deeply troubling things.)
So if you think it’s important to improve the political discourse in this country so that the tough, important questions are asked before the petty idiotic ones (and we get another Bush as the result), then perhaps you could start by condemning those who initiate such attacks (like AL often does) or at the very least avoid contributing to them.
Look, you’re accusing me of having what you call an unfairly negative opinion of Obama, and asking me to replace it with what you’re characterizing as a neutral one.
In order to do this, you’d like me to set aside absolutely all the relevant witness statements, and assume something else entirely — something not indicated by a single factual piece of evidence, and contraindicated by every piece of factual evidence.
That’s not a “neutral” stance, but one positively (and very strongly) biased in his favor.
I do think that fairness, and a desire to improve political dialogue in this country, are both very important. I don’t think either principle requires me to assume things against all the facts and statements on record, in order to prevent myself from thinking something negative about a candidate.
If you feel comfortable basing your views of the man on a single news report constructed, as it were, to convey the position you seem to have adopted, then by all means go ahead and do so. We all live in a world that inundates us with too much information, and because of this it is impossible to dig more deeply into every single story we read. I am certainly guilty of it as well, although I have adopted a view of caution in forming opinions on the basis of a newswire story.
I’ve wandered into this discussion late, but it seems to me, tcg, that it’s you that are trying to do some sort of amateur psychanalysis of Grim based on – well – one sample. Try looking up the dictionary definition of prejudice, and see just where it applies in this case, eh?
I, too, have a negative opinion of Sen. Obama, and you wouldn’t catch me voting for him on a bet. Because he’s
— wait for it —
pretty much a socialist, like a lot of the Democratic left. Yes, I am prejudiced enough against that known lethal ideology to have to no desire to try it, however packaged. You are invited to research my geographic origins and try your best to project other reasons, if you wish.
“If you feel comfortable basing your views of the man on a single news report constructed, as it were, to convey the position you seem to have adopted, then by all means go ahead and do so.”
Please, sir — both your source and mine agree on these particular details. Thus, I am constructing my opinion of the current incident on both of the reports, yours and mine, rather than just one report.
Perhaps the AP and CNN are both trying to slander Obama; and perhaps they are using members of his own campaign to do so, or lying about having sources within his campaign. Perhaps; but again, the facts don’t suggest it.
Just like any other candidate, eh Grim?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml
CBSNews.com Turns Off Comments on Obama Stories
Posted by Brian Montopoli
(AP Photo)
Today CBSNews.com informed its staff via email that they should no longer enable comments on stories about presidential candidate Barack Obama. The reason for the new policy, according to the email, is that stories about Obama have been attracting too many racist comments.
Yes, like the others. Take a look at all the nasty comments Sen. Clinton has drawn over the years; or McCain, during the 2000 election primary; or Bush, throughout his presidency. Obama gets racist comments, Hillary gets all sort of anti-woman comments, McCain is accused of immorality, people openly wish Dick Cheney would die, Bush is said to be behind a secret anti-Constitutional conspiracy re: 9/11, Bill Clinton was accused of murdering (for political gain) Vince Foster and other friends of his, and so on and so forth.
The only difference is that we, as a society, particularly hate racism. We’ll let the sort of comments Hillary or McCain or Bush gather go as ‘just part of the First Amendment,’ but racist comments get shut down. That’s natural and correct, given our country’s history with race. But that’s why you see CBS shutting down hateful comments directed at Obama, and letting the hateful comments about the others go.
Perhaps our society “particularly hates racism” because it has historically led more frequently to violence and oppression than other forms of “nasty comments”. Lumping it in with loony conspiracy theories and other forms of heated criticism or “nastiness” diminishes the gravity and negative impact that racist commentary has.
Loony conspiracy theorists happened to seize control of a certain large country in 1918, and then kill millions of people.
“Perhaps our society “particularly hates racism” because it has historically led more frequently to violence and oppression than other forms of “nasty comments”. ”
Maybe, we’re just obsessed with race and have lost historical perspective.
Please don’t take my comment to indicate that I think the negative impact of racism is a historical rather than contemporary problem. Far from it. Racism is alive and well in America, thanks to prominent figures like Limbaugh (and those who lend him credibility by accepting his hatred without public opposition) who is commonly accepted as part of the “mainstream” Right wing establishment.
Time will tell whether my prediction of increasing and disproportionate race-based hatred against Obama, or Grims’ claim that it is garden-variety anger against public figures, or MIR’s suggesting that it is overblown political correctness to single out racism as especially vile or dangerous, bears itself out. Obama is around to stay for quite some time, and because of that I fear that he will bring out a very ugly side of America that most of us would rather not see.
I understand the Right wing response to this will be similar to Ann Coulter’s views on the 9/11 widows…that is, the spurious claim that criticism of Obama will not be possible because he will be unjustly insulated by charges of racism, and because of this, people should rebel against the idea of “political correctness” because it is alleged to be counterproductive to serious discourse or criticism. This is nothing more than an effort to justify racism on the basis that discretion and restraint is not valorous but rather an impediment to propogating a Right wing political agenda.
If racism is alive and well, it’s because people like you have turned criticism of it into a bad joke, to cover your own moral and intellectual implosion. In your mouths the word is nothing but an admission of your own cowardice and confusion, which is why racism is becoming ever more rampant on the left.