The MetroPCS ads

A friend on Twitter alerted me to some ads that aired during a recent Superbowl and after, hawking MetroPCS' cellular services. These ads feature two South Asian/Indian-Americans, talking with very recognizable accents and using common Western stereotypes - cows, cobras and snake charmers. The ad campaign provoked a major backlash - a Google search for "MetroPCS ads racist" turns up ~29,000 hits, including calls to boycott MetroPCS. The campaign seems to have helped sales, though MetroPCS' Youtube channel no longer features the ads.

I watched the ads, and I must say - I was not offended by them. There are definitely some caricatures I would rather avoid - especially snake charmers and cobras. But maybe I am not offended as many others are, because:

1. I have known Indians who talk like the two characters, though without the cow and snake charmer references. Perhaps that's because I am a first-generation immigrant to the US - FOB! Second- or third-generation Indian-Americans are less likely to find these heavily-accented caricatures even remotely familiar. (I speak English with a distinct accent, though not as pronounced.)

2. Many of the aforementioned Indians-with-a-thick-accent were also very smart - and the two characters in the MetroPCS ads are shown offering useful ("smart") advice to the poor, frustrated cellphone user. This is a "good" stereotype, is there is ever such a thing.

There are other ads that caricature Indians as lazy and incompetent (a la "Sambo") - in particular, a Discover Card ad featuring a guy (who looks White!) with an Indian accent and calling himself "Peggy." These ads definitely make me uncomfortable, and I will probably give Discover a call over this, if not cancel my account altogether.

But the MetroPCS ads? Naah, not worth wasting my time over.

That cartoon...

The New York Post recently published a cartoon by Sean Delonas, showing cops shooting a chimp, and one of the cops saying "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

This has provoked outrage among many people, including musician John Legend, the National Urban League president Marc Morial, Barbara Ciara (president of the National Association of Black Journalists), and the Rev. Al Sharpton.  [All listed in the CNN story are African-American.]  Their point - the chimp represents President Obama (Blacks are often racially taunted by a comparison with apes), and the cartoon encourages his assassination.

The Post subsequently apologized - sort of.  To the people who were offended, but not to those who apparently are regularly opposed to the Post and were (according to the Post) just using the opportunity to beat the Post.  The cartoonist has claimed he was just trying to say that the economic stimulus bill was written by monkeys (who, apparently, are not intelligent.)

The first thing I thought of when I saw the cartoon (admittedly, through a story describing the protests) is that the chimp represented President Obama.  It's not just Blacks who are subject to the chimp comparison - so are aboriginals.  Indian spectators have taunted Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds with a monkey chant (local police tried to explain it away as "praying to the monkey god, Hanuman" - but the picture defeats this lame defense.)

Then again, I do not live in the northeast, and I am not consumed by the mauling-chimp story.

Still, in this day and age, where the Internet has made most local papers global, particularly a prominent rag like the NY Post... using such localized news to comment on an issue of national importance is, at best, plain stupid.  At worst...

On the other hand - does freedom of speech trump everything else?  Yes - but that won't stop me encouraging a boycott of the NY Post unless it apologizes without caveat.  That too, is freedom of expression.

Senator Clinton's gaffes during the primary season

Bruce Reed, the Has-Been over at Slate.com and a Clinton supporter, writes a paean to Senator Clinton, says she stands for the ordinary people who are only trying to just get ahead, says she did not deserve the media's "transparent hostility," and "the most deliberately misunderstood person" in America, as "her every miscue was [portrayed as] part of some diabolical master plan."

Reed generally writes well, but obviously this post is written by a Clinton partisan, not with an objective eye. Of course, I am not free of bias either - I am an Obama partisan. But Reed forgets that Senator Clinton started as the inevitable, experienced, establishment candidate (witness her early lead in superdelegate support), and morphed into the populist, NAFTA-hating, whisky shot-downing, gun-toting duck hunter later - in time for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, when her "experience/Ready-on-Day-One" message was not working.

As for her being the most intentionally misread famous person in America, I say this: Senator Clinton was supposed to be the most prepared, on-message candidate. Ready on Day One, mistake-free as the Presidency is not for on-the-job training. And yet, here's a list of gaffes that plagued her campaign:

1. Senator Clinton: Obama a Muslim rumor not true "as far as I know." [This, after two Clinton Iowa staffers were caught spreading such rumor-filled e-mails - apparently only to show others how dirty politics was getting; see #7.] Such a sterling rebuttal of the false and malicious rumor!
2. Senator Clinton: "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." [emphasis mine]
3. President Clinton: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88." [In 1988, the Rev. won primaries only in states with large African-American populations (with the exception of PR). The 4 other states he won, including SC, were caucuses.]
4. Geraldine Ferraro: Senator Obama is very lucky (and winning) because he is a Black man. [Senator Clinton's wins in OH, PA, KY, WV and likely others were partly fueled by Whites - up to 1 out of 5 voters - who openly said race was an important factor in their decision to vote for her.]
5. Senator Clinton: Senator Obama has not crossed the commander-in-chief threshold and does not have a lifetime of experience - unlike herself and Senator McCain. [used in a GOP ad; violates President Reagan's Eleventh Commandment!]
6. Senator Clinton/surrogates: Caucuses disenfranchise voters, are undemocratic, and caucus delegates should be counted separately from "elected delegates," i.e. delegates from primaries. This after a major caucus loss just makes them look a sore loser, and ignoring subsequent caucus states only makes (and did make) the situation worse. This also made superdelegates from caucus states like Iowa unhappy.
7. Her surrogates: Bill Sheehan (NH campaign co-chairman) and Robert Johnson, BET founder/Clintonite, bring up Senator Obama's candid admissions of youthful drug experimentation; Sheehan suggests Obama might be painted as a drug dealer by the GOP. [This video of Johnson's comments, and CNN analysis of the lame cover-up, show it better.]
8. Senator Clinton: I was under sniper fire... "that is what happened." [aka Bosnia-gate (video).]

And I haven't brought up her flip-flop on NAFTA, assasination-gate, or her virtually offering Senator Obama a pillow during a debate and later saying (after a debate pitting the moderators and Senator Clinton against Senator Obama) that if Senator Obama can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

Sorry, Reed (and other Clintonites/istas). You should also watch this great video by The Jed Report, which covers some of these incidents:
--------------------

--------------------

As Melinda Henneberger at The XX Factor on Slate.com pointed out, Senator Clinton is either gaffe-prone, or well-prepared, "Ready on Day One" - and each "gaffe" above was calculated. She can't be both.

Another Tuesday, another primary... WVa edition

Senator Clinton has handily won the West Virginia Democratic primary - the margin will be around 35%. The Jed Report says Senator Obama, following this huge defeat, has decided to drop out of the race... ;-)

Looking through the exit polls:
1. A fifth of the voters - in a Democratic primary - said race was either the, or one of the, important factors in deciding their vote. This subgroup went for Senator Clinton over Senator Obama 6:1. If that's the fraction that openly admits race was a big factor and voted for the candidate of their race...
2. One bright spot - Catholics were 8% of voters, and split almost evenly, 52-45 Clinton. Hey, that's an improvement for Senator Obama!
[See his "problem" with Catholics here, for instance. Even if Senator Obama appears a natural for the Catholic Reagan Democrat vote.]

On to Oregon... and oh yeah, Kentucky.

From Mildred Loving to John McCain

Mildred Loving, who recently passed away, was responsible for the US Supreme Court ruling antimiscegenation laws in Virginia illegal. Here is a description and e-copy of Chief Justice Earl Warren's ruling on the case, Loving v Virginia. Key quote from the ruling:
"Under our Constitution the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed upon by the state."

Ironically, Loving's death comes close to the "big speech" by Senator John McCain on "activist judges." If laws and social policy were left solely to legislatures, nutjobs voted into power could make ordinary citizens' life hell. Apparently "states' rights" were at least at one time - and maybe even today - code for racial discrimination laws - see this write-up and links therein.

The race speech: convenient omissions?

Charles Krauthammer at WaPo says Senator Obama's speech on race was a "brilliant fraud" in that it did not answer the question: why did Senator Obama not leave Trinity United Church given Rev. Wright's "vitriolic divisiveness"? Andres Martinez, also at WaPo, says "the entire exercise still ended up feeling a bit evasive."

However, in my opinion, both Krauthammer and Martinez completely missed the point of the speech. Rev. Wright may have said some inexcusable things; but he also has done a world of good to many on Chicago's south side. As Senator Obama said, if those YouTube snippets were all he knew of the Rev, he would have reacted in much the same way.

Senator Obama continues: "But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS...." (link)

Further, the mention of Senator Obama's grandmother was not to "throw her under the bus," as so many anti-Obamans have said, but to point out that near and dear ones, including our elders who have tremendous influence over us - like, presumably, a pastor - also harbor racial sentiments that can make us cringe, or for some folks, shape their opinions accordingly. Nobody is perfect; as the Christian sentiment goes, renounce the sin, but embrace the sinner.

The key is, Rev. Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, Robin Morgan, and our grandparents/parents are all products of their times, and whether they spew invective in public or mutter in private in our presence, the onus is upon us to objectively realize the reasons for their views, and not get influenced by their skewed perspective.
[The above paragraph was also partly influenced by Dahlia Lithwick.]

As for the supposed anti-American sentiments of the Rev. Wright? If you go along that route, even Dr Martin Luther King, Jr would be cast as anti-American. And I might add, Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul had pretty much the same sentiments as Rev. Wright over 9/11 - "blowback." (link to video)

Senator Obama's speech on race

Senator Obama gave a speech on race in Philadelphia today. A very good speech, as usual - but made all the more important by the very topic he addressed. The complete transcript is available here. In video form:



Senator Obama mentions that his family spans 3 continents and relations of "every race and every hue." He even has a half-brother in China!

Today, even more than ever, I really hope Senator Obama becomes the next President of the United States of America, the next leader of the free world. We - the people of this world - really need someone with Senator Obama's vision, intelligence, and perspective.

[UPDATED 3/17 PM] Racism and the Democratic campaign: Rev. Wright and Ms Ferraro

A firestorm has erupted over (a) Geraldine Ferraro's comment that Senator Obama would not have been so successful in the Democratic race if he were not a Black man; and (b) the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons (link, link) that folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity (video) and Clinton supporters on various blogs (e.g. blog on TNR) find appallingly racist and hateful. Ms Ferraro has finally left the Clinton campaign (after a few days and after crying reverse-racism - "they're attacking me because I'm white") The Rev. Wright (who recently retired as Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ) has also left the Obama campaign.

First, here is Senator Obama denouncing the specific comments made by the Rev. Wright that US foreign policy was responsible for the 9/11 attack. In video form:





A Clinton supporter, long-time donor and Washington caucus state delegate is disgusted with the Clinton campaign and is leaving Senator Clinton's side.

A Chicago Tribune editorial says both Ms Ferraro and the Rev. Wright were merely exercising their First Amendment rights. The candidates themselves are not to blame, but the editorial says the candidates' reactions are more important, to see how they would deal with adverse situations. "No-Drama Obama has been playing the Ferraro comment with appropriate cool.... Clinton, by contrast, has been clumsier."

Over at WaPo, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, President of the Chicago Theological Seminary, says Ms Ferraro is wrong, calling the controversial remarks the (Catholic-defined) human sin of "willful ignorance." She goes on to compare the American experience with slavery against the German response to the Holocaust; the Germans are trying to force themselves to face their horrifying past, while Americans try to deny racism is still prevalent, much of it directed against Blacks.

[UPDATE] Melinda Henneberger, over at The XX Factor on Slate.com, says - about the Obama-Wright connection - we all have friends who are nutty. She goes on to mention the less-than-perfect pastors behind Senators McCain (televangelist John Hagee, anti-Catholic, and Rev. Rod Parsley, war-on-Islam) and Clinton (Rev. Billy Graham, antisemite). She also points out that since Senator Obama probably knew the Rev. Wright was controversial, he likely remained a member of the Church out of non-political reasons. [END UPDATE]

Finally, this is not the first time Ms Ferraro has accused a Black candidate as getting an easy ride/being successful because he was Black. The Rev. Jesse Jackson responded, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's." Perhaps most tellingly:
"We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

Reponses and notes...

The lively discussion on the SurveyUSA 50-state general election poll continues on the pollster.com board. For some reason, I am having trouble posting my response, so might as well use my blog!
__________________________________________________________________
Ciccina [she said I don't consider Senator Clinton as an individual, just as an adjunct of her husband] - I consider the Clintons as equal partners, and pretty much (at this point!) inseparable from each other. My favoring Senator Obama over Senator Clinton has more to do with governing philosophy (Clinton favors attrition) and openness (Clinton's lack thereof). [link, link]

I found a few references directly or apparently attributing the "two for one" or "buy one, get one free" quotes to President/Governor Clinton. That's a March post "Two for the price of one."

Erik Hare [he said - what should Senator McCain do?]:
Apparently, Karl Rove thinks this extended Democratic fight is *bad* for Senator McCain, as it keeps the spotlight on the Democrats... At least, that's what I think I heard on the morning talk shows.

Uri [fails to see my point about Senator Clinton not being any Woman]:
I was trying to separate opposition to Senator Clinton (Obama) from opposition to Women (Blacks). There may be some latent sexism and racism where it matters - among voters, forget TV talking heads - but hopefully not so much.

As for Americans being upset over the Monica Lewinsky thing - maybe it's the purported puritanical history of America, the rise of the Christian Right in recent times, and the fact that President Clinton lied under oath about it. If he had just admitted to having sexual relations with "that woman," I think the repercussions would have been less (not zero.)

Believe me, if Senator Clinton's the nominee, all that baggage - pardons, Presidential library donations, everything - is coming out. If not directly by Senator McCain, then by the 527s.
__________________________________________________________________

[Updated 3/5 PM] Junior-Super Tuesday blues!

Senator Clinton did what she had to - win Ohio by a fair margin (~12%), and Texas by a smaller margin. She might have chipped away slightly at Senator Obama's delegate lead.

The Clinton campaign accused the Obama campaign of disenfranchising caucus-goers in Texas. However, I recall reading much before today that the caucus process would likely be chaotic - that the first person to show up at the caucus center could be the precinct chair, and effectively control the caucus. I will post a link when I find it. Detailed accusations are here.

Possible factors for these accusations (if they aren't true) - the Clinton campaign assumes Senator Obama will win the caucus portion of the Texas Two-Step, so these accusations degrade that win; and the Clinton campaign does not have enough ground support to man the >8000 caucus sites, particularly in Obama-strongholds (which is where the accusations are being made). In the latter case, if a Clinton volunteer doesn't show up in time, naturally an Obama-volunteer would end up being the precinct chair. As for the former, recall that Clinton surrogates sued to get rid of the "at-large" caucus sites in the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip during the Nevada caucuses, right after the biggest union there endorsed Senator Obama. Of course, given the apparently chaotic nature of the Texas caucuses, it is difficult to know if the latest accusations are true.

In other (non-)news, Senator Obama continues to fight ignorance about his religion and ancestry, in addition to racial prejudice. Writing from El Paso, TX, Meghan O'Rourke (a self-admitted Hillary-defender) reports that a couple of young women at a bar thought Senator Obama was a secret agent of Islam. Again, another Meghan O'Rourke report mentions a Republican who thinks that " "Osama—Osama Bin Laden" fellow had some good ideas: for example, about how CEOs shouldn't make in 10 minutes what workers make in a year..." [UPDATE/NEW LINK] Here is a Clinton supporter sporting a T-shirt saying "Osama for Obama." Finally, a report in The Nation quotes Clinton supporters in Ohio saying they wouldn't support "the nigger."

Earlier, I have written about how someone can be a Obama-supporter and still not be a MCP. Hopefully these individuals ignorant about, and/or prejudiced against, Senator Obama are a minor fraction of the Clinton-following. If, however, that is the support propelling Senator Clinton to the nomination... am I glad to have, thus far, lived (in the USA) in relatively-enlightened places like good university campuses and, of course, Boulder. Not to mention the Democratic Party's loss at denying a fine person like Senator Obama a shot at the Presidency just because he's a Black person with a weird name.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

The charge often levied against Obama-supporters by Clinton-backers is – “You hypocrites! You, so-called “progressive” Democrats, can’t stand a woman becoming President, and would rather vote for a man with a slim resume!”

Undoubtedly, there are men (and maybe some women) voting for candidates-other-than-Senator Clinton because of gender bias. There is also some of that with folks not voting for Senator Obama because he’s Black.

But to cast the entire lot of Obama-followers as male chauvinist pigs is surely an exaggeration? This characterization overlooks the many faults of Senator Clinton and the campaign she has run. I have listed the reasons why I moved away from supporting Senator Clinton, even though I feel it is high time the USA had a woman President. I might even make a claim that I can out-feminist (!) Robin Morgan, since she railed against the lack of female commentators on political talk shows, but I have pointed out that the problem really is the total lack of female hosts on said talk shows, which she did not appear to observe! Yet, I would be classified as a bad old MCP!

In addition to my list, there are other problems with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton – these may or may not be her fault, including the fact that half the country dislikes the ClintonS. President Clinton did lie about his relations with Monica Lewinsky, and may have about numerous affairs he had earlier. The moral character of a President has come into sharper focus, particularly with the rise of the Christian Right; in a previous era, nobody would have cared about President Clinton’s private affairs (see Kennedy, John F.; and Harding, Warren G.). But now enough people do, and like it or not, Senator Clinton carries that baggage with her, in addition to "mixed blessings" like NAFTA, packaged with the glories of the Clinton-42 era. That makes some people worry about her electability, particularly against someone like Senator McCain; some Democrats may not vote for her due to resentment over NAFTA. Note that this has nothing to do with Senator Clinton being A Woman. And yet, these same folks would be called anti-women!

How would Clinton supporters feel if they were called racist and anti-African American for not supporting Senator Obama? That charge could very well be made; after all, Senator Obama has been elected to public office more often than Senator Clinton. He has a decent track record of legislative accomplishments; the advantage Senator Clinton holds, if any, is because she has been around longer, including her stints as First Lady with the powers and influence associated with that position, not because Senator Obama was not active. Some of Senator Obama's positions on foreign policy and the "war on terror" appear to have the approval of Senator Joe Biden, the resident Democratic expert on foreign policy. The Obama health care plan may - initially - leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan, but may be more acceptable to a broader audience, and thus, more likely to become reality. Overall, the Obama and Clinton policy proposals are pretty much the same – except perhaps the fact that Senator Obama does not explicitly state his support for abortion rights, and puts Women’s issues under “Civil rights” rather than as a separate category by themselves, as Senator Clinton does.

But recently, pro-life Democrats like Colorado Governor Bill Ritter have been elected; apparently, a pro-life Democrat need not be actively anti-abortion rights. Senator Obama has not explicitly stated that he is pro-life either; in fact, his Illinois record shows quite a few votes against anti-abortion rights legislation. But in any case, it appears that it is OK for a pro-life White person like Governor Ritter to be elected on a Democratic ticket, just not OK for a Black person to be nominated by the Democratic Party because he appears to waffle on abortion rights, even if he is not pro-life and has received a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. [I know the issue is more complicated - women's rights are not just about abortion; but it is the most bandied-about example.]

So – how would Clinton supporters feel to be called racist bigots, just because they refuse to support Senator Obama if he were to become the Democratic nominee?

In the end, if a progressive agenda is to be implemented, the supporters of Senators Obama and Clinton have to come together; otherwise they risk not gaining anything at all! A prominent example is provided by the extreme leftists who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000; even though I think Al Gore’s loss was due to Al Gore, it is very possible that there were at least 538 leftists out of the 97000+ who voted for Nader in Florida that could have voted for Al Gore. It is well-known how the succeeding years have turned out, in critical fields such as education, health care, emergency response (we have Mayor Giuliani to thank for the 9/11 response), and, as I am told, women’s rights. The country will survive, as good democracies inevitably do; but would one rather not have the country thrive? So – no matter who the Democratic nominee is – a unified front is essential.

P.S. The more I think about it, the more I feel an Obama/Clinton ticket will be the only reasonable solution this election cycle. If the delegates were split 2600-1300, the nominee would be clear. But with a 1900-1700 split – as is likely – how do you realistically choose one over the other? It appears Senator Clinton is willing to ask Senator Obama to be the Vice-Presidential nominee, even if she doesn’t like it. However, would Senator Clinton be willing to fill the VP slot herself, if, as appears likely, Senator Obama has the delegate lead at the end of the nomination process?

P.P.S. SNL, on its return after the writer’s strike, had a couple of good skits in-between the usual drivel. The opening act parodied the CNN debate, showing the hosts as in-the-tank for Senator Obama; the “weekend update” section had an excellent sketch with Governor Mike Huckabee overstaying his welcome and relying on (Democratic!) superdelegates to win the Republican nomination. Hilarious. But the sad part is – SNL could not find a competent Black comedian to play Senator Obama, relying instead on Fred Armisen in blackface. Despite the rich history of African-American comedians (see Rock, Chris; Murphy, Eddie; and others), all SNL has is the stereotypical Fat Black Guy in Keenan Thomson. Plenty of White women, though, some even shilling openly for Senator Clinton. [UPDATE/SOURCE: The part about Keenan Thomson was inspired by Randolph Terrance's quote for Helena Andrews' column in Politico.]